ISS cutbacks

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-27 21:14:05

Yes yes, the long list of sins that the cobbled together rushed Apollo capsules inflicted... Being a little parinoid. The fact of the matter is, the system will not behave signifigantly differently on the ground than it will on orbit. It will not. So, the chance of failure by some unknown zero-G interaction is vanishingly small. Small enough not to spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars testing it on a vehicle which is different than a Moon or Mars ship.

In fact, chances are the whole Moon/Mars ship(s) manned sections will be small enough to ride on a single rocket launch, so infact the whole vehicle could be ground tested together all systems integrated and powerd on before it ever leaves the factory... so in that respect, it will be even safer than ISS testing, since the vehicle will be tested as its complete whole before launch.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-27 22:08:15

I still think you need to test equipment in a controlled environment where astronauts can bale out and return to the Earth quickly if something goes wrong.

Remember my job is to develop the automated calibration and quality control systems for autopilots for UAVs. My problem for the last week has been that the burn-in monitor works on my development workstation but not the production environment. Even in the optomized production release configuration of the software, it runs perfectly on my workstation. On the computer in the garage it works through a single cycle then hangs at the beginning of the second. Why? I don't know, I've been trying to figure that out for over a week. I checked the .dll files to ensure they're the same, I checked for any spyware or computer viruses, I ensured they're running exactly the same operating system, I even installed the development tools. The only difference is the file system on the hard drive and the speed of the CPU: Pentium 4 @ 2.5MHz, 512MB and NTFS on my workstation vs. Celeron @ 1.8MHz, 128MB and FAT32 on the garage computer. Both computers have exactly the same multi-port serial board and both computers communicate through the LAN to the file same file server which has an SQL database. But it still doesn't work in the garage. My faster workstation is nice but the program isn't that CPU intensive. Tomorrow I'll use a software tool (process explorer) to monitor all processes to see if the license management process is terminating; it might be if there is excessive process swapping. Virtual memory paging is Ok but swapping really slows down a computer. I already terminated most things from the system tray, but something isn't working. After testing in my development environment I was sure it would be a simple matter of copying to the production environment and everything would work. It didn't and I'm still trying to figure out why. Meanwhile autopilots are burnt-in with a timer and no monitor; problems are discovered by manual checking (labour intensive).

So what else will fail when astronaut lives are at stake in space? I'ld rather find out where they can bale out in a Soyuz or CEV to return to Earth in minutes.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-28 07:49:30

But the testing Earthside will not take place on some developers' computer a thousand miles away from the integration facility, but the actual launch hardware itself will be tested as a integrated whole while everything is running. So, major faults like that will be easily detected since you can have teams of engineers poke and prod at every detail, rather than launching the thing into orbit and hoping that the overworked, distracted ISS crews will have enough time to spot the glitches? The LSS system, the computers, solar panels, nuclear reactors, etcetera will work exactly the same down here as they do up there... why bother with the multi-billion-dollar expense so a few people might be able to spare some time to test it, whom don't have every tool the thing was built with at their disposal and loads of diagnostic gear & workshops.

Edit: And hey, have seasoned astronauts who have been up before be a integral part of the engineering teams, since they know how it is to live and work in zero-G, and will be able to further refine the designs.

Don't forget that NASA already has a giant vacuum chaimber, which would be plenty big enough to accomodate a HAB module or large lander, so you can test the thing in exactly the same environment it will operate in save for the gravity and radiation.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-28 09:58:12

I am one of those highly skilled engineers. I've been developing computer software for 23½ years. (If you include the year I taught in college, and the year I did telephone technical support for AT&T Worldnet.) I haven't designed computer hardware since the early 1980s but this job gives me the opportunity to develop hardware as well. I checked everything before it was deployed in the garage, it worked here but not in the garage. That's the purpose of testing, check if there is an unknown that couldn't be anticipated. I tested here first where I have all the software tools. I also have a machinist's level, digital multimeter (volt, amp, continuity), monometer (pressure), oscilliscope, and protractor (angles, sometimes simple tools are best). In the next room is a workshop for building UAVs and some of the electronics. Visual Studio provides a complete software development environment. I developed client-server reports with colour graphs of gyro response over time, and response of all sensors to temperature. But none of that helps when an unknown problem arises. I have trouble getting access to the garage since the guys who flight test UAVs use it most of the day. I know first hand why testing is needed.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-28 10:04:37

And tested it will be... on the ground. Since you can't plan for EVERY eventuality, some risk of "unforseen circumstance" must be taken, and if Mars crews can't manage a few minor issues than interplantary spacecraft are beyond us. The bennefit of MAYBE spotting some of these on orbit at the ISS is simply a bad investment.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-28 14:38:19

I don't see a single module for ISS competing with a manned mission to Mars. A U.S. habitat module for ISS could permit 7 crew, as originally designed, so ISS could do real science. Proving a long duration Close LSS in Earth orbit is a real technology development in preparation for Mars, or the Moon as George W. Bush wants. What would it cost? One more Shuttle flight and construction of the module itself. The hull for the US Hab was already completed, which is one reason why congress had a fit when they discovered NASA wanted to abandon it for TransHAB. How much of the LSS equipment was already completed? I doubt it would be very expensive to complete. Consider it to be the first step toward Mars.

Euler · 2004-07-28 16:13:50

Don't forget that NASA already has a giant vacuum chaimber, which would be plenty big enough to accomodate a HAB module or large lander, so you can test the thing in exactly the same environment it will operate in save for the gravity and radiation.

As you said, you can't effectively test equipment in 0-gravity on the ground. 0-g changes things, and many devices that work well on the ground do not work in space.

Even more importantly, you cannot test how the equipment handles when it is actually being used in the field. Even if the equipment works, it might be a lot less reliable or harder to use than the engineers expected.

Edit: And hey, have seasoned astronauts who have been up before be a integral part of the engineering teams, since they know how it is to live and work in zero-G, and will be able to further refine the designs.

That is another strong argument in favor of ISS. After all, the astronauts have to get their experience somewhere.

BWhite · 2004-07-28 16:35:34

So what exactly is the argument here?

=IF= ISS/STS could be scrapped immediately perhaps the money could be better spent. I have argued that quite loudly yet I accept that ending ISS may not be politically feasible. Perhaps my real point about scrapping ISS/STS now is that GWB just ain't the space visionary the GOP spin machine would like us to believe he is.

=BUT= if ISS will not be scrapped NOW, then to finish it and not put it to any useful work is worse than worst case.

To finish ISS with petulance and refuse to modify ISS to allow useful experiments (such as a TransHab crew module and CELSS testing) is the same as burning $20 -$30 billion just to make a rhetorical point.

Mad Grad Student · 2004-07-28 17:21:37

The trouble with simply putting a bigger door on an ATV-style vehicle is, the ISS doesn't have docking guidence hardware on the US nodes. Using the Russian docking system would require redesigning it and its software for the different size hatch, different hatch couplings, new clamps, different electrical supply voltage, different computer hookups, etc... and the new hardware would HAVE to be launched by Shuttle, there is no other way.

You really don't need guidence hardware on the docking port. The shuttle of course doesn't need the system because there's someone sitting in the cockpit slipping it in to dock, and an automated vehicle doesn't need it if it's remotely operated. If you design a new vehicle from the ground up to resupply, it doesn't require any extensive modifications, it was always meant to use the American ports.

Designing the simple throw-away ATV took several years and half a billion dollars... plus will cost a pretty penny each at $185M including launch. You want to make somthing much, much more complicated that has to weigh about the same and be reuseable? Oh yes, and the Proton rocket is not substantially more powerful than the Ariane-V either, and the Ariane also launches communications/weather/GPS satelites so you have to share the left over available launch rate.
Building such a vehicle with a heat shield and TPS and parachutes and air bags and new docking hatch and so on isn't going to be a walk in the park, I imagine it would cost at least a billion dollars and cost around $300M each with launch on Ariane-V or Zenit-II. Awfully high price for only a few metric tonnes each trip now and then. (ESA ATV can haul about 9MT of cargo... take several tonnes off for reentry gear and such)

I never said that it wouldn't take money to make. Perhpas it would be best turn designing of the heavy ATV over to Scaled Composites. Nobody (or at least not me) is saying that Burt Rutan is God, but he is very, very good at what he does. Designing things on time, on budget, and overperforming. He designed, built, and delivered the Proof Of Concept version of the Beech Starship in a year, and the jump between the Starship or Voyager or the DC-X or SpaceShipOne (three other Scaled creations) and the required resupply vehicle isn't all that great. It could probably be done for $300-$400 million tops, and that would be a worthy investment. As far as launch vehicles, you can compare them:

http://astronautix.com/lvs/ariane5g.htm]Ariane V: 16,000 kg to LEO
http://astronautix.com/lvs/probrizm.htm]Proton: 21,000 kg to LEO

Bear in mind that Protons must launch to near-ISS inclinations because of their high-lattitude launch site. Both the Zarya and Zvezda modules were launched by Protons, and the research and science modules will be brought to orbit via Proton as well. Anything with that kind of throw power could easily keep the ISS well-stocked with a few flights a year. They're not exactly environmentally friendly, but hey, whatcha gonna do?

The ISS and the shuttle are not the Siamese twins they are always made out to be. With a little bit of creativity and improvisation, the shuttle won't be needed to keep the station humming.

Euler · 2004-07-28 18:12:56

I am pretty sure that ATV will use Ariane V eca or ecb, rather than the obsolete g version. As it has evolved, Ariane V has gotten a lot more powerful, with payload to GEO jumping from 6,800 kg to 12,000 kg. The newer version should actually be able to transport more mass to ISS than Proton can.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-28 23:51:42

There is still not that much benefit testing a supposed HAB module at the ISS. The crew will not have time to poke and prod and monitor and check the thing, they will be busy with lab experiements and maintenance. And while there will be some componets which will behave differently in zero gravity than on the ground, I think that we are experienced enough now with spaceflight systems that this can be compensated for in the engineering calculus. And as far as having the HAB module so we can have more trained astronauts, the ones going up on the ISS anyway should be plenty for initial Lunar/Mars missions.

And yes you do really need the guidence for the docking port. You can only get range information with radar or lidar systems and not attitude, and for lidar like the ATV uses you will need docking port modifications. Any cargo vehicle has to have automatic docking/docking-abort capability, if for no other reason a safety measure in the event of remote control failure or mistakes, and that means docking port modifications. The Shuttle doesn't need it because it is already docked at the Shuttle port and can just use its arm to move pieces/containers around the ISS since it isn't free floating anymore. Shuttle BTW doesn't have any worry of remote control failure, since it isn't being remote controlled.

Yes, yes you are deifing Burt Rurtan. He has simply not done anything of note dealing with craft as complex as spacecraft. He would never be able to come up with somthing like this... Beach Starship, another little airplane? DC-X, which they were only a subcontractor? SpaceShipOne, which is nothing of the sort, just a rocket powerd Cessna? No, Burt is not competant at designing spacecraft, and any bid from him for this project should be rejected out of hand.

Making a new cargo vehicle which has enough volume to carry multiple ISS racks or other large items plus is strong enough to handle launch & reentry, and is light enough to ride on a Delta-IV/Proton/Ariane with a heat shield/parachutes/airbags while still being able to carry multiple tons to the station... and back down intact... is a tall order. I would guess a billion dollar order, at least, and still cost in the region of $400-500M+ a shot.

Which again, is money that NASA does not have to spend, since Shuttle keeps gobbling up the dollars... and to be frank, even the ISS in its original fully equipped 7-man form with continous Shuttle flights would still have a lack of science to do, simply because there is not much that can be done up there. Its not worth it even if we can fix it... And don't forget, the thing is getting old. And older. And older... delays for HABs and delays for cargo ships and delays for more Soyuz orders (which take a year or two to build) adds up. How long is the decrepit monstrosity going to last?

RobertDyck · 2004-07-29 00:36:22

Burt is not competant at designing spacecraft, and any bid from him for this project should be rejected out of hand.

Burt Rutan's company, Scaled Composites, built X-38.

Making a new cargo vehicle which has enough volume to carry multiple ISS racks or other large items plus is strong enough to handle launch & reentry, and is light enough to ride on a Delta-IV/Proton/Ariane with a heat shield/parachutes/airbags while still being able to carry multiple tons to the station... and back down intact... is a tall order.

Keep it simple, keep it small. Once ISS is built you don't have to replace all science racks in a single launch. Keep science service missions small and inexpensive.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-29 07:16:40

Actually no, Orbital Sciences built the X-38. Scaled Composits might have provided some of the pieces, just like they only provided some portions of the DC-X, which was never a space vehicle of any sort to begin with... Astronautix says only the aerodynamic dummie mockup X-38's were built by Scaled, not the real genuine article.

In order for such a vehicle to safely dock with the ISS, and carry large/heavy things (racks, gyros, 400lbs solar cell batteries, airlock gas tanks, etc), enough science racks to make the trip worthwile (say, a dozen at least), and finally be able to return items (and possibly itself) to Earth for recovery... there is no choice but to build a fairly complex vehicle of substantial size. Small and simple is not an option.

Edit: In fact, I have my doubts that it can be done while being able to return payload to Earth and still stay under the weight limit for Proton/Ariane/Delta-IV HLV given the high inclination of the ISS orbit... Oh, and the $400M price tag is for a $200M Delta-IV and $200M for the vehicle & operations.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-29 08:40:46

We had this discussion before, but you weren't so vocal in your opposition then. I said operation of ISS requires a small and simple space taxi. That means a reusable OSP capable of carrying 4 astronauts and one piece of carry-on luggage for personal items, no cargo at all. For simplicity I use the same size and weight restrictions as carry-on luggage for an economy seat on a commercial airline. However, a seat could be removed and a duffle bag attached to the floor bolts that used to hold the seat. This would permit cargo equal in mass to one astronaut's body weight, his/her Aces suit, the seat and the piece of carry-on luggage. One, two, or three seats could be replaced by cargo. Instead of a duffle bag, a simple frame could hold drawers for the science rack. This wouldn't be large enough for a whole rack, but most science experiments will consist of drawers for existing racks, not replacement of an entire rack.

Such a reusable OSP could be based on X-38 or HL-20. X-38 was designed for 7 astronauts in coveralls, and HL-20 was designed for 10 astronauts, so either way the vehicle would have to be scaled down. Size it to be launched by Atlas V 401.

Big things like 400 pound batteries or entire science racks could be carried by ATV. Science drawers that need to come down can be carried by OSP, but large things can be brought down by ESA's Dump Box.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-29 10:23:28

The X-38 or similar concept is not a suitable template for such a vehicle, it is simply too strip down and too small. A baby HL-20 would weigh far too much for launch on an Atlas 501 to the ISS and puts the Delta-IV Medium 54 almost out of the running. And if you make it smaller (say, room for 4-6 w/ suits) then it might be able to ride with only a few SRBs, but there wouldn't be much left over mass for cargo if you took out the seats, LSS, and cockpit... you could put a ton or two of stuff up using the big Atlas 55X or Delta-IV HLV, but this is assuming there is no weight creep and adds big money to the launch costs. Don't forget the big launcher payload penalty for the high orbital inclination and the weight of the booster adapater.

Oh and the HL-20 is pretty cramped compared to the MPLM derived ATV:the large size of the ISS racks, around five or six feet tall and about three feet wide & deep... not little "drawers" or whatever. I think its questionable if the OSP would be able to hold more than three, perhaps four of these in a cargo-only configuration. The ATV can hold eight.

The OSP isn't going to happen anyway, that much we know for sure, as it would have cost several billion to build at least and have no use other than orbital crew delivery. So, that leaves us with the CEV and Soyuz, since Russia isn't likly to come up with the money for Klipper & Onega. Russia claims that it can build up to four Soyuz capsules per year, for about $200M. Sounds like the best option to me, given that CEV will take a while... Was that a 2014 target date for manned flights?

ESA drop boxes? I don't think so...
1: They're pretty small, are they big enough to fit a science rack into?
2: How do you get them up to the ISS?
3: How do you load them? Dock them to an American node hatch and shove a pair of racks into them?
4: They definatly won't fit INSIDE the station through any of the hatches, Russian or American.

And no, you still can't bring large objects up on the ATV, because the Soyuz hatch is barely big enough for people to fit through, much less racks/batteries/gyros etc.

Edit: A little mass breakdown...
-Estimated mass of original HL-20: 12,000kg
-Estimated mass for HL-20 Lite loaded: 8000kg
-Estimated mass for booster adapater & OMS: ~1500-2000kg
-Estimated penalty for launch to ISS orbit & altitude as opposed to lower equitorial orbit: 40%
-Payload mass for Atlas 501 to ISS orbit: 6200kg
-Payload mass for Atlas 551 to ISS orbit: 12,000kg
-Payload mass for Delta-IV 54 to ISS orbit: 8200kg
-Payload mass for Delta-IV HLV to ISS orbit: 15,500kg

RobertDyck · 2004-07-29 10:47:29

Ah, so you say it cannot be "stripped down" and must have unnecessary complex stuff added, crew expanded and heavy cargo lift capacity added. All this makes it not feasible so let's scrap it. But if you accept the fact that additional stuff isn't necessary, MAXIMUM 4 crew and no cargo, that creates a small vehicle. I also think HL-20 is a better ship than X-38: it has reusable deorbit engines and can land on a runway. Mass 10.884 tonnes and seats for 10 crew in Aces suits. You're saying we can't shrink that down to 8.24 tonnes even by shrinking it to 4 crew? The Atlas V 501 has lower lift capacity due to the wider payload fairing. HL-20 with its 10-crew configuration has a wing span of 7.16 metres. Ok, for the sake of arguement let's say Altas V can't quite lift 8.24 tonnes to ISS. You think reducing HL-20 to have 40% the carry capacity won't significantly reduce vehicle mass?

Cargo only: I think that's a bad idea. A manned vehicle has a lot of safety features that aren't necessary for a cargo only mission. Notice I said at most 3 seats replaced to hold cargo, that leaves at least one pilot. If you want a cargo only mission then send ATV.

As for CEV: it's just an idea. NASA hasn't established requirements yet. Boeing designs are highly preliminary. I still think we're better of with a SMALL space taxi for access to LEO, and a dedicated vehicle for the Moon.

Cost: X-38 had a budet of $1.2 billion. With all the changes and INCLUDING conversion to an OSP launched in Ariane V, the budget expanded to $2 billion. HL-20 also has a budget of $2 billion. The $10-17 billion price tag that Boeing and Lockheed Martin were asking for OSP was just price gouging.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-29 11:13:43

*scratches his head* Crew carriage is not the problem... $100M a year for Soyuz flights will fix that problem nicely. Cargo is the problem. Without the ability to fly large objects up and at least some down with efficency on a regular basis, then it doesn't matter if you can launch the crew and HAB for free.

There are many componets of the HL-20 that won't get any lighter if you shrink the thing, and the overall structure will still stay pretty heavy even if it is shrunk by around 40ish%. I think that 8000kg of vehicle + 500kg for crew + 1500kg for adapter, escape rockets, and OMS fuel is quite reasonable... 12,000kg total. Even if this is cut down by about 20% with modern materials, then you are still looking at needing the bigger Atlas 55X or Delta-IV HLV to fly the thing given the penalty for orbital inclination to the ISS. The Atlas 401/501 or any of the Delta-IV Mediums just won't cut it.

Now, how much will it cost... the X-38 as a CTV was a silly idea to begin with. The HL-20 with its $2.2Bn price tag would surely be higher now than it was a decade ago when it was concieved... $3Bn I would guess. Then another billion or so for flight operations a year. Now, where is this money going to come from, especially since we only need spend another $100M for Soyuz?

Again, the ATV is not suitable for science payloads or major ISS componets. They Don't Fit.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-29 11:27:20

Most science payloads are drawers. Bill White already addressed modifying ATV. Major contractors are always trying to increase price, but let's not forget the budget for X-38 before changing the goal of what it was supposed to be was $1.2 billion. Let's keep the price down.

So you're saying American engineers no longer have the ability to engineer a vehicle. HL-20 can't be scaled down to 40% size no matter what. I give them more credit than that.

Soyuz as a crew taxi to ISS: Ok, sounds good and looks cost effective. But I thought congress doesn't want to buy Soyuz.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-29 11:46:30

Yes, and the drawers/racks are quite big. About three feet wide on their smallest dimension. The huge batteries are pretty large too. And so are the gyros. Too big to fit through the Soyuz hatch. And you can't get anything back down either... I say that Bill has not fully considerd how hard it would be to modify the ATV like this... a heavy heat shield that doesn't fit anywhere, parachutes, airbags, larger docking collar, power system modifications... and still be able to carry useful payloads... At the cost of ~$300M a shot.

Right now, the ATV is limited by the Ariane-V to around 7,000kg-9,000kg, much of which is ISS fuel and water. Cutting a few tons off for the modifications will leave you with almost nothing for science hardware or foodstuffs, much less 200kg batteries and several hundred kilo gyros, 100kg replacement space suits, etc... and don't forget about the retrofire fuel.

Hoping that the cargo problem goes away is not going to make it go away. The ATV is too heavy and the engines in the wrong configuration to serve for the mission of cargo hauler. Oh! And don't forget that you still have to modify the US node hatches with ATV docking guidence hardware.

Now about the baby HL-20...

No, even if you did shrink it down to around half its original planned size, it is not going to magicly become half the weight of its 16,000kg (with everything) elder sibling. Its already a tiny enough vehicle as it is to fit people in, and as you shrink the vehicle you have more surface area (hence mass) per unit of volume. Just going into CAD software and do "All measures * 0.5" is not going to yeild a 50% drop in mass... A 33% reduction in mass for a ~40% reduction in size is perfectly reasonable.

BWhite · 2004-07-29 11:49:47

ATV?

Maybe there is some confusion between me and someone else.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-29 11:56:54

ATV?
Maybe there is some confusion between me and someone else.

Oops, sorry, that was Mad Grad Student.

BWhite · 2004-07-29 12:09:44

ATV?
Maybe there is some confusion between me and someone else.
Oops, sorry, that was Mad Grad Student.

No problem.

I adopt enough unsupportable positions as it is.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-29 12:46:15

Reducing HL-20: Use a top hatch like X-38 instead of a tail hatch. Eliminate the long tunnel from tail to window. HL-20 already has wider crew compartment in front than behind, that can be made more so by extending internal space into the cheeks. Move equipment such as oxygen tanks from the cheeks to back of the fuselage. Generally make internal space wider and shorter. Simply using volume:area ratios it would mean reducing internal volume to 40% would reduce surface area to 54%. For argument sake, let's say we reduce vehicle size to 60% (nice round number). That would reduce vehicle mass to 6530 tonnes. Say average astronaut body mass 84kg, Aces suit 12kg, and 10kg per astronaut for luggage; that totals 424kg for cargo and crew. Add 1000kg for adaptor and escape rockets; I include OMS fuel in vehicle mass. That's 7954kg total. Atlas V with no SRBs and 4 metre diameter upper stage should be able to lift that to ISS.

::Edit:: Atlas V 401 has greater lift capacity than Atlas V 501, which is why I favour the 401.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-29 13:33:10

I don't believe you realize just how small the HL-20 is... This is a mockup of the interior for the full 100% scale vehicle: http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/h/h … 20int3.jpg

If you made it any wider, you'd either have to abandon the circular pressure hull (adding weight) or find shorter astronauts... Already a 40% reduction in size makes the whole thing so small that they have to fit shoulder-to-shoulder.

And then, rearranging the tanks, batteries, and whatnot will foul up the center of gravity too, don't forget.

Said batteries, landing gear systems, air tanks, rocket engines, escape motors, RCS engines, booster adapater (!!!), radar/lidar system, electronics, control surface solenoids, wiring mass, hull and atmosphere sensors... all these things are not going to get much smaller just scaling down the design.

A 1/3rd decrease in mass for a 40% decrease in size really is quite generous, none of this 54% talk... And furthermore, NASA is planning for the CEV to make a direct hyperbolic return to Earth from the Moon, which HL-20 cannot do, so that HL-20 or derivitive cannot be used as the CEV. Go right ahead and have fun trying to get congress to build a completly redundnat spacecraft which is going to cost $3-4Bn and another $0.5-0.7Bn or so to operate a year, when they could just send $100M Russia's way until the CEV is online.

dicktice · 2004-07-29 13:49:33

Most science payloads are drawers. Bill White already addressed modifying ATV. Major contractors are always trying to increase price, but let's not forget the budget for X-38 before changing the goal of what it was supposed to be was $1.2 billion. Let's keep the price down.
So you're saying American engineers no longer have the ability to engineer a vehicle. HL-20 can't be scaled down to 40% size no matter what. I give them more credit than that.
Soyuz as a crew taxi to ISS: Ok, sounds good and looks cost effective. But I thought congress doesn't want to buy Soyuz.

Space teathers and light sails are certainly not drawer-size payloads. They'd require Progress spacecraft to transport, and (new idea?) deploy and manipulate in LEO from the vicinity of the SSP.

Experienced aerospace engineers must be on their last legs by now, so perhaps they can no longer have said ability. Are there any experienced aircraft engineers who would want to get involved in the interim? Canadian engineers who were made available when the Avro "Arrow" fighter bomber program was cancelled, back in the late 50's, were tremendous assets to the the Apollo Program.

Which Congress? . . . hopefully the next one will be more receptive to the opportunity of Soyuz handed to them on a platter.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-07-27 21:14:05

Re: ISS cutbacks

#77 2004-07-27 22:08:15

Re: ISS cutbacks

#78 2004-07-28 07:49:30

Re: ISS cutbacks

#79 2004-07-28 09:58:12

Re: ISS cutbacks

#80 2004-07-28 10:04:37

Re: ISS cutbacks

#81 2004-07-28 14:38:19

Re: ISS cutbacks

#82 2004-07-28 16:13:50

Re: ISS cutbacks

#83 2004-07-28 16:35:34

Re: ISS cutbacks

#84 2004-07-28 17:21:37

Re: ISS cutbacks

#85 2004-07-28 18:12:56

Re: ISS cutbacks

#86 2004-07-28 23:51:42

Re: ISS cutbacks

#87 2004-07-29 00:36:22

Re: ISS cutbacks

#88 2004-07-29 07:16:40

Re: ISS cutbacks

#89 2004-07-29 08:40:46

Re: ISS cutbacks

#90 2004-07-29 10:23:28

Re: ISS cutbacks

#91 2004-07-29 10:47:29

Re: ISS cutbacks

#92 2004-07-29 11:13:43

Re: ISS cutbacks

#93 2004-07-29 11:27:20

Re: ISS cutbacks

#94 2004-07-29 11:46:30

Re: ISS cutbacks

#95 2004-07-29 11:49:47

Re: ISS cutbacks

#96 2004-07-29 11:56:54

Re: ISS cutbacks

#97 2004-07-29 12:09:44

Re: ISS cutbacks

#98 2004-07-29 12:46:15

Re: ISS cutbacks

#99 2004-07-29 13:33:10

Re: ISS cutbacks

#100 2004-07-29 13:49:33

Re: ISS cutbacks

Board footer