Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

Bill White · 2003-09-17 07:14:19

My opinion - - as an outside observer - - the US Powers that Be (PTBs) simply do not want humanity to "enter space" in the Zubrin-esqe sense of entering space. At least not right now. Otherwise, Why kill the X-38? Why this whole OSP/OST problem? Why all the other irrational things NASA seems to do?

In my view, NASA performs EXACTLY as the PTBs inside the Washington beltway want NASA to perform. NASA is not the problem, NASA is the symptom of our lack of a public consensus on * WHY * going into space is a good thing.

Palomar · 2003-09-17 08:53:46

My opinion - - as an outside observer - - the US Powers that Be (PTBs) simply do not want humanity to "enter space" in the Zubrin-esqe sense of entering space. At least not right now. Otherwise, Why kill the X-38? Why this whole OSP/OST problem? Why all the other irrational things NASA seems to do?
In my view, NASA performs EXACTLY as the PTBs inside the Washington beltway want NASA to perform. NASA is not the problem, NASA is the symptom of our lack of a public consensus on * WHY * going into space is a good thing.

*Okay...I don't want to get this off topic or sound like a broken record or drag another issue into this, but I am honestly wondering:

How do we expect that the U.S. public (taxpayers) will support the space initiative at this point in time? Economy is bad, jobs are still being lost, we're in Iraq.

I honestly don't understand how some of you can be so optimistic, "as if" this were U.S.A. 1999. This isn't directed at Bill personally; his post seems to reflect what others are saying/thinking as well.

The U.S. public will not support a space initiative with all this other stuff going on -- especially when their wallets are hurting and 1000's of people are being laid off or are uncertain where the next paycheck is coming from.

I don't get it. Explain your optimism to me (whoever), please.

--Cindy

clark · 2003-09-17 09:10:28

How do we expect that the U.S. public (taxpayers) will support the space initiative at this point in time? Economy is bad, jobs are still being lost, we're in Iraq.

People generally like space. People like hero's. People will support a vision of something greater than themselves.

Investment in space exploration can lead to job creation, which in turn improves the economy.

The U.S. public will not support a space initiative with all this other stuff going on -- especially when their wallets are hurting and 1000's of people are being laid off or are uncertain where the next paycheck is coming from.

People still try to go to the circus, even when they're broke.

Bill White · 2003-09-17 09:24:16

The U.S. public will not support a space initiative with all this other stuff going on -- especially when their wallets are hurting and 1000's of people are being laid off or are uncertain where the next paycheck is coming from.

Precisely! Unless "we" can find better reasons for entering space and selling the idea to the general public it won't happen. Thats my point.

By the way, the amount the US spends on farm subsidies (not to mom and pop farmers but to giant agri-business) is enough to accomplish a Mars mission. Stop paying people NOT to grow food and we can improve 3rd world economies and use the federal budget savings to pay for Mars.

Palomar · 2003-09-17 09:28:10

*Well, I see Clark has chimed in.

Now, any -serious- responses? Please. I want to know how you all figure Average Joe/Jane U.S. Taxpayer are all oh-so-thrilled and excited about more taxpayer $$$ being used for the space program.

Especially since we are going to be paying an average of $29,000,000,000 per year for Iraq, Bush has recently requested $3,000,000 for replenishing war supplies, RJ Reynolds is slashing 40% of its workforce, other employers are laying people off in droves, etc.

I'm not looking for a debate. I just want to know how some of you figure you can get Joe & Jane Q. Public to jump up and down and flash the pom-poms around for the space program at this current time, because I just don't see it happening any time soon.

Sorry to rain on any parades.

Thank you.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: I see Bill has responded just as I initially posted this. Will respond later (going off-line).

clark · 2003-09-17 09:31:50

Cindy, you are a lovely flower. But I have allergies. I'll let someone else hold your hand.

RobertDyck · 2003-09-17 11:10:53

How do we expect that the U.S. public (taxpayers) will support the space initiative at this point in time? Economy is bad, jobs are still being lost, we're in Iraq.

Actually, Clark has a good point. The proportion of people's income spent on movies or other entertainment was greater during the Great Depression than any time for half a century afterward. People need an escape from reality when reality gets really bad. Look how much a movie ticket costs today, compare that to when I was a child (1960's). A matinee in the '60s cost 37 cents for a child under 12 years old. Today the price for an adult at prime time for a movie theatre is $8.50 Canadian. Sure I'm comparing adult prices in the evening to child prices for a matinee, but still the price is extreme. People need their escape, but they will only be interested if they believe they will be able to go to space themselves within in their life time.

Then there are practical considerations: as I said, properly run commercialization of space will be profitable.

As for the economy: the company I worked for in 2001 had primarily American customers. They had greatly reduced business due to a major economic slump in the US starting in February 2001. Don?t blame the war, that didn?t create the economic problems, it just made them worse.

There is another reason to go to space: with all this war we need to get the hell off this planet. People need to get away and move to someplace where they can focus on their daily lives without fear of attack. Give people the choice to colonize space where they can start a new, and I think you will find people who are very interested. They key is to ensure the short term goal is colonization, not just exploration by an elite astronaut corp.

We also need to distract our national leaders away from war and onto something constructive. Perhaps focusing the world on colonization of space, and competing for who can industrialize space first and draw a profit from it, will take attention away from dropping bombs on each other.

Palomar · 2003-09-17 11:32:39

How do we expect that the U.S. public (taxpayers) will support the space initiative at this point in time? Economy is bad, jobs are still being lost, we're in Iraq.
Actually, Clark has a good point. The proportion of people's income spent on movies or other entertainment was greater during the Great Depression than any time for half a century afterward. People need an escape from reality when reality gets really bad. Look how much a movie ticket costs today, compare that to when I was a child (1960's). A matinee in the '60s cost 37 cents for a child under 12 years old. Today the price for an adult at prime time for a movie theatre is $8.50 Canadian. Sure I'm comparing adult prices in the evening to child prices for a matinee, but still the price is extreme. People need their escape, but they will only be interested if they believe they will be able to go to space themselves within in their life time.

Clark: "I'll let someone else hold your hand."

*How thoughtful. But I didn't ask you to hold my hand and I don't need anyone to hold my hand; I'm quite capable of taking care of myself.

Yes, Robert, people tend to buy cigarettes, booze, and other entertainment-related items even in times of great financial hardship.

But there's a difference between people willingingly divying up out of their own pockets to attend a movie of their choice or to go to the circus. Quite a different matter is the government deciding for you that x-amount of tax dollars will go to fund the space program.

Should we encourage people to get interested in the SP, to get excited about going to Mars, etc.? Well, certainly. I wouldn't have joined the Mars Society if I felt any differently.

But I'm being realistic about this (or so I think); there is a tremendous level of anxiety, frustration, anger, and even depression in the U.S.A. concerning the basics of living: Jobs and paychecks. You don't live in the U.S.

Can we distract people back to a desire for space exploration? I hope so. We should try. But I'm not going to turn a blind eye to what's going on around me, or ignore the mood of the nation I live in.

Maybe all the crap going on will "backfire" in a favorable direction and more people WILL become interested in space exploration. Unfortunately, I currently see no evidence of that.

But I'd hope it to be on a basis of genuine interest and realism (stability and long-term interest), rather than based on emotive escapism (flash in the pan, short-term interest until a new "fad" comes along).

--Cindy

clark · 2003-09-17 11:35:37

Literalism will kill you, literally.

Good luck finding whatever it is you are looking for.

RobertDyck · 2003-09-17 14:06:55

You don't live in the U.S.

I did live in the U.S.; I was in a suburb of Richmond, Virginia, from June through December 1996, and Miami, Florida, from June 1999 through March 2000. I was working for the Miami-Dade county government during the Elian Gonzalez affair and still in Florida during the start of the U.S. federal election. I do have some idea what it's like. I also lost my job on September 14, 2001, as a direct result of the September 11 attack; the company I worked for had primarily U.S. customers. I didn't have much work after February 2001, and the owner decided the U.S. economy wasn't going to improve any time soon after 9/11.

Ad Astra · 2003-09-17 14:27:14

/trying to steer thread back on track/

In an audience with Dr. Mae Jemison, I asked her why there was such public disinterest in space. She replied by saying that the interest was there; people just needed to see some goal that the space program was working towards. The overwhelming public support to continue following the loss of Columbia only strengthened what she told me nearly three years ago. If we give the space program a lofty but realistic goal, the people will support it.

The goal is the problem. There are people like Sen. Brownback and Rep. DeLay who want to see NASA set a goal for itself, while Sean O'Keefe continues to stress the need for a "capabilities-oriented" program. Even if the DeLays win the argument, it's up in the air whether NASA will choose the moon, Mars, or asteroids as a goal. But Orbital Space Plane and ISS would be re-scoped in order to fit in with the grand scheme, and I dare say that ANY goal-oriented program will get us closer to Mars.

Ad Astra · 2003-09-20 02:19:09

Perhaps it's better for us, as space enthusiasts, that the bring-back capacity of OSP is so limited. The need to return more science hardware justifies more OSP launches. More launches also means more money to the aerospace industry, hence more jobs in California and other states.

With the space shuttle economic model, the bulk of the launch costs are fixed, and the incrimental cost of adding more missions is low. I would expect this to be different with OSP on an EELV, because it's more expensive to replace the entire rocket than it is to replace the fuel tank and rebuild the SRBs. Still, much of the EELV cost must be fixed, so it should not be too expensive to increase the flight rate. And after the sanctions slapped down on Boeing for its scandalous behavior in the EELV competition, I would expect Boeing to favor any decision that would increase their Delta IV launch rate.

RobertDyck · 2003-09-20 08:15:34

And after the sanctions slapped down on Boeing for its scandalous behavior in the EELV competition, I would expect Boeing to favor any decision that would increase their Delta IV launch rate.

Boeing scandalous behaviour? Did I miss something?

Ad Astra · 2003-09-20 08:25:53

Boeing hired Lockheed Martin employees from the Atlas V project. These employees then gave Boeing proprietary documents on the Atlas V that should have stayed at LockMart. The Air Force responded by reversing many of the launch contracts that had been granted to Boeing. Overall, the picture at Boeing's Launch Services isn't too rosy--they already pulled out of commercial launches, and the Air Force launches they counted on just aren't there anymore.

sethmckiness · 2003-09-20 11:03:28

Boeing hired Lockheed Martin employees from the Atlas V project. These employees then gave Boeing proprietary documents on the Atlas V that should have stayed at LockMart

Other then the document issue, this is standard practice for the military. It is very common for contracts to change hands, but the employees remain the same in the Air Force. It makes sense.

Ad Astra · 2003-09-25 11:23:03

It is interesting to note some of the level II requirements for OSP, as released on Sep. 23. One of the requirements is that both crew abort and crew escape be possible. Abort consists of saving the crew and vehicle, while escape is defined as saving the crew while losing the vehicle. Interestingly, it is suggested that a reinforced crew cabin that could survive the loss of vehicle is an alternative to ejection seats or capsules. The final Columbia report makes a small reference to such an idea as a retrofit to the space shuttle, as it was determined that Columbia's crew module descended around 75,000 feet before the stresses became too much for its heat-weakened structure. It should also be noted that crew members sitting in a reclined position (such as the X-38 seating arrangement) would not be able to eject using conventional seats. Because mass will be an important consideration, the reinfoced cabin may be a better idea for the OSP than my personal favorite, the encapsulated ejection seat.

RobertDyck · 2003-09-25 13:00:00

My favourite ejection method is an ejection seat with a pop-up windshield, and a foam inflated heat shield. The pop-up windshield idea is taken from Russian supersonic jet fighters. The foam inflated heat shield is taken from the MOOSE bail-out system developed for Apollo. The seat would also need small manoeuvring rockets to position it heat shield first. You could add de-orbit rockets to permit bailout from orbit. Add to that a parachute sized for the astronaut and spacesuit. The seat would release the seat belt when the parachute is deployed to eject the seat, just like modern jet fighter ejection seats. This system should work with an ACES suit; which has floatation devices and a built-in raft, and is bright orange in colour to be easily spotted by rescue helicopter.

There you go; ejection seat from orbit. It would work in orbit, while de-orbitting, while supersonic, or while subsonic. The only question is whether the heat shield can be deployed quickly enough to punch-out while the vehicle is enclosed in plasma. That would normally require the seat to be oriented backward, that is seat back facing forward.

Ad Astra · 2003-09-25 14:42:23

I think the supporters of winged or lifting body vehicles were handed a victory by the Level 2 requirements, because it is easier to punch out of a glider than a semi-ballistic capsule (although the Vostok astronauts were required due to design to eject.) However, capsules are more resistant to failure during re-entry, so ejection seats might not be necessary for a capsule. A capsule would be better off using the re-inforced crew compartment.

RobertDyck · 2003-09-25 16:05:17

Actually, a capsule could also use this ejection seat. In fact it wouldn't need the windshield since the seat is already seat-back first. The seat itself would act as the windshield. The heatshield would have to inflate and harden as the seat comes off its ejection rails and enters the plasma stream. Tricky timing.

One thing with an ejection system is to keep the mass low. If it is as big and heavy as the primary re-entry vehicle, you have just put one vehicle in another. That would be so big and heavy (read expensive) that it would be cancelled. My worry with any encapsulated ejection seat is that it would be as big as a Mercury capsule.

Tyr · 2003-09-25 16:06:49

If we're going to build a capsule like Zubrin advocates, we might as well just use the Soyuz or the Shenzou. If we aren't going to build a HLLV we might as well buy the Energia. Sure, this won't make any money for the US aerospace corps. and that's why it will never happen! I'd like to build Shuttle configs like C,Z and Ares and put a Big G capsule on a Shuttle Z. A whole new orbiter would be cool. We could keep the ET and step up to LFBBs and recycle some of that X-33 and Venturestar program technology like a lifting body design and linear aerospike engine to make an all new orbiter that has twice as much passenger room within to haul tourists. a good link: http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch1.htm
The OSB or 'mini-shuttle' doesn't appeal to me. I thought the Japanese were working on something like that. Anyhow, until NASA has a clear cut goal like Mars and a return to the Moon, it will just be a bloated bureacray run by bean counters. Email your congress critters!!

Ad Astra · 2003-09-26 17:27:19

When the original requirements for OSP came out, it was inevitably compared to the HL-20 (which was resurrected early in the design stage) and the X-20. The reason for this is because the X-20 was the logical next step between the small capsules of the 1960s and the large shuttle of the 1980s. However, the boobs who ran the DoD in the early '60s (McNamara and Harold Brown, specifically) felt that the X-20 had to posess a military mission to be justified. Hence, the X-20 was cancelled in favor of the more cost-effective MOL. But the X-20 should have been saved, merely refocused as a technology development program. Had the X-20 been flown, engineers would have posessed realistic expectations regarding the shuttle regarding its maintenance, materials, propulsion, and operations.

In the year 2003, we're looking back and realizing how ignorant we are in terms of ability to build a reusable spacecraft. That's why a Dyna-Soar inspired solution has become so appealing to engineers. Build the small spaceplane first, and a bigger shuttle-class vehicle will follow.

alokmohan · 2003-09-27 06:03:03

Senators say public is not interested ,NASA says no money etc.With China on race motive will come soon to go to Mars to outdo China.

Tyr · 2003-09-27 12:56:57

Here's my nutty input. As for bringing back stuff from space, some kind of cheap module with an inflateable heat shield and parachutes might work.

http://groups.msn.com/DaveDietzler/spacejunkyard.msnw

http://www.moonminer.com/advanced_shuttle.html

Ad Astra · 2003-09-29 21:06:20

I was surprised to learn that the encapsulated ejection seats for the Hermes space plane were designed for use at Mach 6 and 100,000 feet. Truly incredible, and hopefully they can be put to use in OSP.

To meet NASA's new requirement for crew escape, it is probably required that the vehicle have some sort of titanium cabin that will survive a Columbia-type descent until it reaches ejection speed and altitude, at which point the crew will punch out. These systems will make the vehicle heavier, but a crew of only four should give engineers some leeway to design a robust crew escape system.

Still unsettled is whether the booster rocket will use solid boosters. The small solids used on the EELVs are more dependable than the large segmented solids on Titan and Shuttle, but they're still not totally dependable. Still, it may be necessary to use solid boosters to avoid the expense of launching the craft atop an expensive Delta IV heavy.

Ad Astra · 2003-10-02 14:16:34

If OSP i built before 2008, it will not have wings.

Early on in the program, Boeing has promoted an upscale version of the X-37 as their OSP. But the X-37 will not fly in orbit until 2006. Do they expect two years to be sufficient for building an enlarged, man-rated version?

That's why Boeing is also planning on an Apollo-like capsule. It remains to be seen what the new Lockheed-Northrop team will come up with.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-09-17 07:14:19

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#52 2003-09-17 08:53:46

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#53 2003-09-17 09:10:28

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#54 2003-09-17 09:24:16

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#55 2003-09-17 09:28:10

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#56 2003-09-17 09:31:50

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#57 2003-09-17 11:10:53

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#58 2003-09-17 11:32:39

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#59 2003-09-17 11:35:37

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#60 2003-09-17 14:06:55

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#61 2003-09-17 14:27:14

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#62 2003-09-20 02:19:09

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#63 2003-09-20 08:15:34

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#64 2003-09-20 08:25:53

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#65 2003-09-20 11:03:28

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#66 2003-09-25 11:23:03

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#67 2003-09-25 13:00:00

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#68 2003-09-25 14:42:23

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#69 2003-09-25 16:05:17

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#70 2003-09-25 16:06:49

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#71 2003-09-26 17:27:19

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#72 2003-09-27 06:03:03

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#73 2003-09-27 12:56:57

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#74 2003-09-29 21:06:20

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

#75 2003-10-02 14:16:34

Re: Orbital Space Plane by 2008 - Faster, Cheaper, Better?

Board footer