Think Tank Get Together at NASA HQ (seen on NASA Watch)

Seen on NASA Watch:

| Think Tank Get Together at NASA HQ
| Editor's update: NASA will be holding a "Think Tank Roundtable"
| next Tuesday at NASA HQ. This event will include briefings for
| several dozen representives of Washington, DC organizations,
| think tanks, and industry on NASA's budget and major programs.

Here's what I'd do:

1. Stop all work on Ares I and Ares V.
2. Stop all work on Orion.
3. Use the money saved by the above to invest in no less than two COTS
vehicles for ISS resupply, both unmanned and manned. Flights on COTS
vehicles would be purchased by NASA. NASA would not own the hardware or do
the launch prep for these vehicles.
4. Invest in a program to demonstrate LOX and LH2 storage and refueling in
LEO. This should include active cooling so that propellants can be stored
indefinitely.
5. Throw out the current lunar architecture and re-work it completely so it
can be launched on today's EELV's and can use LEO refueling.
6. Mothball or dismantle all unneeded shuttle infrastructure after the
shuttle is retired.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

Jeff Findley wrote:
Seen on NASA Watch:

| Think Tank Get Together at NASA HQ
| Editor's update: NASA will be holding a "Think Tank Roundtable"
| next Tuesday at NASA HQ. This event will include briefings for
| several dozen representives of Washington, DC organizations,
| think tanks, and industry on NASA's budget and major programs.

I was curious about that myself. Which direction is the presentation
going to go, NASA telling industry what they're doing, or NASA admitting
they have a serious problem with what they're doing and asking for help.

Here's what I'd do:

1. Stop all work on Ares I and Ares V.
2. Stop all work on Orion.
3. Use the money saved by the above to invest in no less than two COTS
vehicles for ISS resupply, both unmanned and manned. Flights on COTS
vehicles would be purchased by NASA. NASA would not own the hardware or do
the launch prep for these vehicles.
4. Invest in a program to demonstrate LOX and LH2 storage and refueling in
LEO. This should include active cooling so that propellants can be stored
indefinitely.
5. Throw out the current lunar architecture and re-work it completely so it
can be launched on today's EELV's and can use LEO refueling.
6. Mothball or dismantle all unneeded shuttle infrastructure after the
shuttle is retired.

And feed your fuel tanks from residual fuel from my Delta V, constructed
from left over SSMEs from the shuttles, and using Ares I upper stage
technology in a new lighter more robust Delta IV type vehicle - SSTO.

You know, Michoud, Decatur, etc. Vast orbiting space hotels, etc.

That 'LOX and LH2 storage and refueling' is going to be a little more
challenging than you think, though, but you'll have plenty of Delta IV
upper stages to play with. You know, RL-10s and Mitsubishi stuff.

1a, 2a and 3a) there's no argument from my mindset.

4a) what's so terribly wrong with establishing a LEO cache of h2o2?

5a) what's wrong with using the Earth-moon L1 as the refueling depot?

6a) that's simply another automatic if not retroactive given.

7) hire China or if need be India to replace most everything NASA.

- Brad Guth



Jeff Findley wrote:
Seen on NASA Watch:

| Think Tank Get Together at NASA HQ
| Editor's update: NASA will be holding a "Think Tank Roundtable"
| next Tuesday at NASA HQ. This event will include briefings for
| several dozen representives of Washington, DC organizations,
| think tanks, and industry on NASA's budget and major programs.

Here's what I'd do:

1. Stop all work on Ares I and Ares V.
2. Stop all work on Orion.
3. Use the money saved by the above to invest in no less than two COTS
vehicles for ISS resupply, both unmanned and manned. Flights on COTS
vehicles would be purchased by NASA. NASA would not own the hardware or do
the launch prep for these vehicles.
4. Invest in a program to demonstrate LOX and LH2 storage and refueling in
LEO. This should include active cooling so that propellants can be stored
indefinitely.
5. Throw out the current lunar architecture and re-work it completely so it
can be launched on today's EELV's and can use LEO refueling.
6. Mothball or dismantle all unneeded shuttle infrastructure after the
shuttle is retired.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

In sci.space.policy message ,
Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:49:04, Jeff Findley
posted:
3. Use the money saved by the above to invest in no less than two COTS
vehicles for ISS resupply, both unmanned and manned.

Two is insufficient. One must plan for at least one project to fail,
and one must end up with a competitive situation.

THE STS ET has quadruple ECO low-hydrogen sensors .. and Columbus is
still not flying.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 23:50:36 +0000, in a place far, far away, Dr J R
Stockton made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

In sci.space.policy message ,
Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:49:04, Jeff Findley
posted:
3. Use the money saved by the above to invest in no less than two COTS
vehicles for ISS resupply, both unmanned and manned.

Two is insufficient. One must plan for at least one project to fail,
and one must end up with a competitive situation.

THE STS ET has quadruple ECO low-hydrogen sensors .. and Columbus is
still not flying.

That's a different situation. They have a common-cause issue there.
The reason for four is actually for fail-op, not fail-safe, but they
overtightened the rules on it after Columbia.

"Dr J R Stockton" wrote in message
nvalid...
In sci.space.policy message ,
Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:49:04, Jeff Findley
posted:
3. Use the money saved by the above to invest in no less than two COTS
vehicles for ISS resupply, both unmanned and manned.

Two is insufficient. One must plan for at least one project to fail,
and one must end up with a competitive situation.

I did say no less than two, but I think two serious COTS programs would
create enough competition to reduce risk and (long term) cost. The two
programs would be two completely different designs by two different
contractors.

THE STS ET has quadruple ECO low-hydrogen sensors .. and Columbus is
still not flying.

Not the same thing. Each ECO sensor has the same design as the other, so
they all have the same common failure modes.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

In sci.space.policy message , Wed,
9 Jan 2008 14:09:14, Rand Simberg
posted:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 23:50:36 +0000, in a place far, far away, Dr J R
Stockton made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

In sci.space.policy message ,
Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:49:04, Jeff Findley
posted:
3. Use the money saved by the above to invest in no less than two COTS
vehicles for ISS resupply, both unmanned and manned.

Two is insufficient. One must plan for at least one project to fail,
and one must end up with a competitive situation.

THE STS ET has quadruple ECO low-hydrogen sensors .. and Columbus is
still not flying.

That's a different situation. They have a common-cause issue there.
The reason for four is actually for fail-op, not fail-safe, but they
overtightened the rules on it after Columbia.

It is a matching situation. They did not plan properly for plausible
failure mechanisms. Sensors such as I believe are used should be fairly
reliable; but expecting connectors with LH2 on one side to be reliable
is blatantly optimistic. (BTW, for some years my work involved
cryogens, down to 4.2K and below). The connector is an obvious site for
multiple failure.[*]

There is a reasonable chance that any one launcher business, unless
fully backed by an affluent government, may fail. Remember Beal
Aerospace? It is certain that it's bad to have a commercial monopoly in
any business. So planning sensibly requires at least three initial
contenders.
[*] The wires should have been routed to the top of the tank, above the
LH2. A non-immersed connector would have cooled much less, especially
if foamed more on the inside than the outside.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. /
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (SoRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SoRFC1036)

On 8 Jan, 15:44, kT wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
Seen on NASA Watch:

| Think Tank Get Together at NASA HQ
| Editor's update: NASA will be holding a "Think Tank Roundtable"
| next Tuesday at NASA HQ. This event will include briefings for
| several dozen representives of Washington, DC organizations,
| think tanks, and industry on NASA's budget and major programs.

I was curious about that myself. Which direction is the presentation
going to go, NASA telling industry what they're doing, or NASA admitting
they have a serious problem with what they're doing and asking for help.

Here's what I'd do:

1. *Stop all work on Ares I and Ares V.
2. *Stop all work on Orion.
3. *Use the money saved by the above to invest in no less than two COTS
vehicles for ISS resupply, both unmanned and manned. *Flights on COTS
vehicles would be purchased by NASA. *NASA would not own the hardware or do
the launch prep for these vehicles.
4. *Invest in a program to demonstrate LOX and LH2 storage and refueling in
LEO. *This should include active cooling so that propellants can be stored
indefinitely.
5. *Throw out the current lunar architecture and re-work it completely so it
can be launched on today's EELV's and can use LEO refueling.
6. *Mothball or dismantle all unneeded shuttle infrastructure after the
shuttle is retired.

And feed your fuel tanks from residual fuel from my Delta V, constructed
from left over SSMEs from the shuttles, and using Ares I upper stage
technology in a new lighter more robust Delta IV type vehicle - SSTO.

You know, Michoud, Decatur, etc. Vast orbiting space hotels, etc.

That 'LOX and LH2 storage and refueling' is going to be a little more
challenging than you think, though, but you'll have plenty of Delta IV
upper stages to play with. You know, RL-10s and Mitsubishi stuff.

Nobody has yet discussed the essential ECONOMIC issues of COTS. These
are globalization and flag. The easiest solution would simply be to
purchase Soyuz. Economics tells us that whatever the technology is,
costs are reduced though economies of scale.

In fact Arianespace is doing just that.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Ar...ise_Soyuz.html

Why not enter a partnership with Arianespace?

- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:Nobody has yet discussed the essential ECONOMIC issues of COTS. These
:are globalization and flag. The easiest solution would simply be to
urchase Soyuz. Economics tells us that whatever the technology is,
:costs are reduced though economies of scale.
:

This is, in point of fact, a very bad idea unless your goal is to
subsidize the RUSSIAN space program with AMERICAN dollars.

:
:In fact Arianespace is doing just that.
:
:http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Ar...ise_Soyuz.html
:
:Why not enter a partnership with Arianespace?
:

Because it's essentially run by the French, who haven't precisely been
reliably our friends over the last half century, either?

Look what Arianespace did for the German and UK space programs
(essentially ended them - no Sanger and no HOTOL).


--
"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

Ian Parker wrote:
On 8 Jan, 15:44, kT wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
Seen on NASA Watch:
| Think Tank Get Together at NASA HQ
| Editor's update: NASA will be holding a "Think Tank Roundtable"
| next Tuesday at NASA HQ. This event will include briefings for
| several dozen representives of Washington, DC organizations,
| think tanks, and industry on NASA's budget and major programs.
I was curious about that myself. Which direction is the presentation
going to go, NASA telling industry what they're doing, or NASA admitting
they have a serious problem with what they're doing and asking for help.

Here's what I'd do:
1. Stop all work on Ares I and Ares V.
2. Stop all work on Orion.
3. Use the money saved by the above to invest in no less than two COTS
vehicles for ISS resupply, both unmanned and manned. Flights on COTS
vehicles would be purchased by NASA. NASA would not own the hardware or do
the launch prep for these vehicles.
4. Invest in a program to demonstrate LOX and LH2 storage and refueling in
LEO. This should include active cooling so that propellants can be stored
indefinitely.
5. Throw out the current lunar architecture and re-work it completely so it
can be launched on today's EELV's and can use LEO refueling.
6. Mothball or dismantle all unneeded shuttle infrastructure after the
shuttle is retired.
And feed your fuel tanks from residual fuel from my Delta V, constructed
from left over SSMEs from the shuttles, and using Ares I upper stage
technology in a new lighter more robust Delta IV type vehicle - SSTO.

You know, Michoud, Decatur, etc. Vast orbiting space hotels, etc.

That 'LOX and LH2 storage and refueling' is going to be a little more
challenging than you think, though, but you'll have plenty of Delta IV
upper stages to play with. You know, RL-10s and Mitsubishi stuff.

Nobody has yet discussed the essential ECONOMIC issues of COTS. These
are globalization and flag. The easiest solution would simply be to
purchase Soyuz. Economics tells us that whatever the technology is,
costs are reduced though economies of scale.

There are two scales : amplitude and frequency, size and launch rate.

My Delta V addresses these scales in two ways, the booster core itself
is the minimum size necessary to achieve orbit with the engine we have,
and the maximum size allowed for air transport in the Guppy, Beluga and
Dreamlifter. The engines that we have are the 14 ground started SSMEs.

With booster enhancement of any kind, you can do whatever you want.

So, we're good to go, are we not? Have you read my COTS proposal?