NASA studies new booster (UPI)

On Sat, 01 May 2004 16:33:42 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

They've never been sustainable for a serious exploration
initiative--just for comsats and milsats and the occasional planetary
mission.


What, then, is a "serious" exploration initiative if nothing done to
date (which the guys at JPL would just love to hear) and nothing that
has been proposed (which the guys at Houston would just love to hear)
doesn't count?

..... At horrendous costs per flight.


The proposed heavy lifters would be no more "horrendous" than what has
currently in use, so not outside the realm of possibility for what
Prersident Bush has proposed, which is probably why NASA is looking at
those options among others.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On 1 May 2004 15:09:40 -0700, (Edward Wright)
wrote:

.... If you insist that space settlement be delayed until space
has been explored ....

No, but I think there should be SOME reconnaissance before you
colonize to get the lay of the land. And as noted, the line gets very
blurry. As I noted a while back, an expidition to Mars will have to
stay there until the launch window for the return flight opens, which
could be over a year depending on the type of orbit used. That
entails having a base from which they could explore more of Mars.
Similarly, the lunar base President Bush has proposed can serve as the
home base for exploration of the Moon.

Put another way, if you define "exploration" as going out from Earth
and coming right back without an extended stay, and "settlement" as
going out and making extended stays, then from here on out, that line
will no longer exist, especially when you start talking about
expiditions to other planets, because orbital mechanics dictate you
have to stay until the return trip's launch window opens. And closer
to home, the proposal for a lunar base also blurs the line, because
any further exploration of the Moon would not be with crews from
direct from Earth but with researchers operating out of a base.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



Scott Lowther wrote:

Dick Morris wrote:

LEO refueling would allow us to launch propulsion stages dry, so that
they could be filled on-orbit. Since propellants are by far the largest
component of the initial mass in LEO of a manned lunar or Mars ship, the
propellant depot allows us to launch the *same* payload to the Moon or
Mars using a vehicle with roughly 1/5 the LEO payload we would need if
we did it in a single launch.

Yes... but launching very large balloon tanks, larger than the launch
vehicle, leads to aerodynamic trickiness.

I'm talking all-liquid, VTOL, so the tanks would be internal and the
aerodynamics would resemble an ELV more than the Shuttle.

A Shuttle-class RLV would have other applications besides manned lunar
and planetary exploration, and the addition of the LEO propellant depot
seems a small price to pay to eliminate the need for expendable
heavy-lift launchers for going to the Moon or Mars.

Errrr.... a shuttle derived booster, with S-V class payload, would
almost certainly be a cheaper development effort than a Shuttle-class
RLV. For starters, the fabrication and launch infrastructures are
already in place.

It could be cheaper, though probably not a great deal cheaper than a
ballistic RLV. The "Ares" in particular would need a complete redesign
of the ET, though most of the mold lines could remain the same, allowing
much of the existing tooling to be used. In addition, it would require
a totally new design for the upper stage. The orbiter stage of a
ballistic RLV would also be a totally new design, and require the
development of recovery hardware as well so it would likely be a more
expensive design than the Ares upper stage. But the RLV booster stage
could use a cluster of modified stages from an existing ELV design, with
the addition of landing legs, so it need not be a totally new design any
more than the Ares booster.

Even if it cost substantially more to develop, a properly designed RLV
would have lower total costs in the long term due to much lower
recurring costs.

It was essentially
the very high costs associated with the use of expendable hardware that
killed Apollo.

No. It was lack of political interest.

Once we beat the Russians to the Moon, the original political motive
ended, but lunar science *could* have sustained the program had it not
been so expensive to get there with the expendable Saturn V. Had it
been relatively cheap to get to the Moon, we would probably have been
able to generate enough political support to keep going back.

We want to go back to the Moon and on to Mars *to stay*,
and I see little chance even of getting back to the Moon with expendable
HLLV's - and no chance of a permanent program.

Tell me: if you have a Martin "Ares" type booster, with reusable SRBs, a
reusable propulsion module, and a very large ET that stays on orbit to
be used as a basis for any of a number of things... what is *really*
wasted?

In the Mars Direct flight profile, the upper stage is always expended,
and the ET is also expended since it is jettisoned sub-orbital (though
the engine package could theoretically be recovered). There may be
other flight profiles which take the tank into orbit where it could be
used for something, like maybe a large space station module, though how
many tanks are we going to be able to use on-orbit if we have to expend
another ET, or an entire ELV, every time we want to go up and access
them? It may make some sense to stockpile a dozen or so ET's in orbit
toward the end of the Shuttle program, but I think it will take an RLV
to make effective use of them.

We've been launching expendable and partly reusable designs for 45 years
now, and we've made little progress toward sustainability since the 60's
- comsats are about the only commercially sustainable market we have. I
don't want to spend the next few decades with another go-around of the
partly-reusable paradigm. We're in a vicious cycle, and we need
something completely new to break out of it.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

Michael Gallagher wrote:

On Sat, 01 May 2004 16:33:42 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

They've never been sustainable for a serious exploration
initiative--just for comsats and milsats and the occasional planetary
mission.


What, then, is a "serious" exploration initiative if nothing done to
date (which the guys at JPL would just love to hear) and nothing that
has been proposed (which the guys at Houston would just love to hear)
doesn't count?

..... At horrendous costs per flight.


The proposed heavy lifters would be no more "horrendous" than what has
currently in use, so not outside the realm of possibility for what
Prersident Bush has proposed, which is probably why NASA is looking at
those options among others.

The assertion that a new system would be no worse than present systems
is not a very good selling point. We've been proposing expendable
HLLV's for going to Mars, or back to the Moon, for about 35 years with
exactly zero success. I see no particular reason to believe we will
have any more luck the next time.

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Michael Gallagher wrote in message . ..

.... If you insist that space settlement be delayed until space
has been explored ....

No, but I think there should be SOME reconnaissance before you
colonize to get the lay of the land.

There has already been some reconnaissance. We have maps of the Moon
and Mars at resolutions Lewis and Clark never dreamed of. I don't see
why you keep denying the obvious.

Put another way, if you define "exploration" as going out from Earth
and coming right back without an extended stay, and "settlement" as
going out and making extended stays,

I don't define "exploration" and "settlement" that way -- nor does
anyone else. Settlement means establishing permanent homes, villages,
towns, and cities --not conducting "extended" campouts.

then from here on out, that line will no longer exist,

Nonsense. "Researchers operating out of a base" for "extended stays"
are not settlers. You're still talking about an infinite series of
"Lewis and Clark expeditions" for no discernable purpose except to
enable more "Lewis and Clark expeditions."

The real Lewis and Clark conducted only one expedition, and it had one
specific goal -- to enable the immediate opening of the American West
to settlement and commercial exploitation.

In re the Lunar Community: this base would be the initial beachhead for the
exploration and settlement of the Moon. Likewise a Martian Base would be the
initial beachhead for the Martian settlement. In this, we are in agreement.

Critics do not understand, but the primary emphasis in the Mount Malapart
Base would be both exploration (like unto Arctic & Antarctic) and settlement
(like unto Roman frontier settlement).

--
Leonard C Robinson
"The Historian Remembers, and speculates on what might have been.
"The Visionary Remembers, and speculates on what may yet be."

Dick Morris wrote:


Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Scott Lowther wrote:

Dick Morris wrote:

LEO refueling would allow us to launch propulsion stages dry, so that
they could be filled on-orbit. Since propellants are by far the largest
component of the initial mass in LEO of a manned lunar or Mars ship, the
propellant depot allows us to launch the *same* payload to the Moon or
Mars using a vehicle with roughly 1/5 the LEO payload we would need if
we did it in a single launch.

Yes... but launching very large balloon tanks, larger than the launch
vehicle, leads to aerodynamic trickiness.

I'm talking all-liquid, VTOL, so the tanks would be internal and the
aerodynamics would resemble an ELV more than the Shuttle.

So... you want to put great big, empty Earth-to-Mars liquid hydrogen
tank payloads on the outside of a DC-Y or some such? I'd be interested
to see how well THAT would work...

The "Ares" in particular would need a complete redesign
of the ET

Already done. Martin studied the bejesus out of that for NLS, the design
is pretty mature.

In addition, it would require
a totally new design for the upper stage.

Any man-capable TMI stage will be a Wholly New Thing, regardless of
launcher.

The orbiter stage of a
ballistic RLV would also be a totally new design

As would the lower, as we don't have one of those, either.

, and require the
development of recovery hardware as well so it would likely be a more
expensive design than the Ares upper stage. But the RLV booster stage
could use a cluster of modified stages from an existing ELV design, with
the addition of landing legs, so it need not be a totally new design any
more than the Ares booster.

Uhh... sure...


It was essentially
the very high costs associated with the use of expendable hardware that
killed Apollo.

No. It was lack of political interest.

Once we beat the Russians to the Moon, the original political motive
ended, but lunar science *could* have sustained the program had it not
been so expensive to get there with the expendable Saturn V. Had it
been relatively cheap to get to the Moon, we would probably have been
able to generate enough political support to keep going back.

The only cheaper way to the moon in the 1960's was to mass produce
Saturn V's or, better, Novas.

Tell me: if you have a Martin "Ares" type booster, with reusable SRBs, a
reusable propulsion module, and a very large ET that stays on orbit to
be used as a basis for any of a number of things... what is *really*
wasted?

In the Mars Direct flight profile,

Do not take that as gospel.

the upper stage is always expended,

For the near term, there ain;t no such thing as a reusable
Earth-Mars-Earth vehicle.

and the ET is also expended since it is jettisoned sub-orbital (though
the engine package could theoretically be recovered). There may be
other flight profiles which take the tank into orbit where it could be
used for something, like maybe a large space station module, though how
many tanks are we going to be able to use on-orbit if we have to expend
another ET, or an entire ELV, every time we want to go up and access
them?

If we have space tourist RLVs, with ocean-cruise costs... yer gonna need
all the desitinations you can muster. Space stations built from two
dozen ET's will be needed in some abundance. Lunar bases made from ET's
will also be highly prized... and they can serve as the basis for Big
Ass Trans Mars Vehicles once the orbital propallnet scavengers and tank
farms are in place.


It may make some sense to stockpile a dozen or so ET's in orbit
toward the end of the Shuttle program, but I think it will take an RLV
to make effective use of them.

Yeah, so? An RLV of Shuttle-class payload simply won;t be able to
*launch* an ET. An Ares-class booster will launch one as a *byproduct*.

We've been launching expendable and partly reusable designs for 45 years
now, and we've made little progress toward sustainability since the 60's
- comsats are about the only commercially sustainable market we have. I
don't want to spend the next few decades with another go-around of the
partly-reusable paradigm. We're in a vicious cycle, and we need
something completely new to break out of it.

Indeed. Reuse the stuff we have, for starters.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Tue, 04 May 2004 13:21:16 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

It was essentially
the very high costs associated with the use of expendable hardware that
killed Apollo.

No. It was lack of political interest.

A lack of political interest that was at least partly due to the high
cost. ...

... of the Viet Nam war. In any event, the bulk of the cost of Apollo
was in R&D and infrasteructure, all of which was already done.
Continuation of Apollo, even if they didn't improve the S-I and S-IC
stages to make them recoverable, could have proceeded at a fraction of
the peak Apollo-era funding.

Which was still perceived to be too much.

Well, sure. *Any* expendature on space was seen as too much.

Hippies never let facts get in the way of a good protest march.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

On Tue, 04 May 2004 11:47:27 -0400, in a place far, far away, Michael
Gallagher made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

On Sat, 01 May 2004 16:33:42 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

They've never been sustainable for a serious exploration
initiative--just for comsats and milsats and the occasional planetary
mission.


What, then, is a "serious" exploration initiative if nothing done to
date (which the guys at JPL would just love to hear) and nothing that
has been proposed (which the guys at Houston would just love to hear)
doesn't count?

The kind we had in this country--many people exploring many regions,
for their own purposes.

..... At horrendous costs per flight.


The proposed heavy lifters would be no more "horrendous" than what has
currently in use,

Those are horrendous enough.

Scott Lowther writes:

Rand Simberg wrote:

Which was still perceived to be too much.

Well, sure. *Any* expendature on space was seen as too much.

Hippies never let facts get in the way of a good protest march.

I didn't know that congress and the administration was filled with a
bunch of hippies trying to figure out how to pay for Vietnam. In
fact, I thought the hippies were against the war.

Our involvement in Vietnam and the Space Race (to the moon) were both
ways to combat Communism. They had little to do with hippies.

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