Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-25 09:18:56

Yes that is an issue, but how much of an issue is it really? A great deal of the money that goes into each Shuttle shot is spent entirely on the ORBITER and the huge amount of safety checks to eek out that last percent of reliability for man-rating. This money can be saved when Shuttle is gone, while not losing anything in keeping the pad & infrastructure running. This is a signifigant chunk of money, and the Shuttle Army is getting old anyway.

Say a manned Lunar mission can be mounted by 2015, that means there would be no flights from Pad39 to anyplace for about five years, following Shuttle's retirement. Challenger and Columbia both postponed launches for about two years (barring a Dr.Bell "legion of doom" shuttle cancelation) but everything is still there. And between 2010 and 2015, with preliminary design work already done by starting now, these five-ten years will probably see signifigant KSC/Michoud/etc activity modifying the place for SDV and actual test flights of the system.

It need not be an either/or proposition.

The big question is, how much of the non-orbiter workforce do we need to make SDV fly three or four times a year, which is probably what Nasa is trying to determine right now.

I think any concept for a mega-EELV is DOA... a "Delta V" with 5 CBCs could only haul about double that of a regular D4-HLV, and its payload faring can't be expanded all that much and preserve aerodynamics, and the thing would be bloody hard to assemble.

RobS · 2004-03-25 14:24:43

This is a fascinating discussion, and I suspect it mirrors discussions going on inside NASA right now. An SDV would launch a lot more than the existing EELVs, but do we have enough demand for the capacity? If not, the SDV won't be cheaper, and it has to be developed for about $20 billion, which is a lot of bucks. It could cost a lot more for unneeded capacity while EELVs could have been adequate. On the other hand, as the architecture for the Mars-moon system evolves, the EELVs may prove utterly inadequate to handle it because of the cost of assembly (especially if it has to be assembled at ISS, a very inefficient orbit). NASA might find itself making the best decision on this conundrum as it can, and discover in a decade its decision was wrong (as happened with the shuttle).

Consider these factors:

We can't count on in-situ fuel manufacturing on the moon until it's actually been done, and it may not be doable without people. By 2010 we should have a pretty good idea what ice resources exist at the pole. Assuming the ice is there, can we build a telerobotically operated fuel manufacturing system that does not need people, at least initially? The technical challenge is pretty cool and may be worth the effort, as it could be one piece in the next robotics revolution to sweep the world economy. That's a more valuable contribution than tang, and is up there with weather and communications satellites. But even if it is cool, would NASA place all its eggs in one basket and assume it can develop lunar fuel manufacturing capacity BEFORE it sends crew to the moon? I don't know. But that decision has a HUGE impact on the entire transportation system you design.

To give an example, let us assume the Crew Exploration Vehicle masses ten tonnes (which should be about right, and is a nice, round number). For it to take off from the lunar surface and fly straight back to Earth (delta-v, 2.3 km.sec) will take an 8.5 tonne stage (7.5 tonnes of fuel and 1 tonne of structure). If there is lunar fuel manufacturing, we only need to transport the CEV and the empty stage to the moon, and we could use lunar fuel to land it. If there is no lunar fuel manufacturing, we need to transport the fuel to the lunar suface as well, which requires a 2-tonne stage with 14 tonnes of fuel (from lagrange).

Thus we would need to put in low Earth orbit a 10-tonne CEV and 3 tonnes of stage with 21.5 tonnes of fuel just to handle the delta-v in lunar space (the landing and takeoff). To transport the total of 34.5 tonnes to lunar space we would need 50 tonnes of fuel in a 5 tonne stage; now we have to put into low earth orbit a total of about 90 tonnes. And I suspect the amount actually has to be even more; my calculations may end up on the low side.

I wouldn't want to do this using EELVs; you'd need four 27-tonne launches (especially since my numbers may be a bit low).

Even a solar-electric (ion propulsion) tug changes the situation quite a lot. A three-tonne stage with 21.5 tonnes of fuel could be launched on one EELV (with 1.5 tonnes of fuel margin, if the total is 27 tonnes) and a reusable solar-ion tug launched on another one and it could push the stage to the lagrange point and hold it there. The solar-ion tug would mass about 5 tonnes and need maybe 6 tonnes of fuel, so it could go up on a smaller, cheaper rocket and the refueling could be conducted easily for each flight. The 10-tonne CEV could go up with a 16 or 17 tonne stage on another EELV and fly straight to the Lagrange Point, where it would dock with the lunar landing and launching vehicle and land. Thus a solar-ion tug reduces the mass to about 2 1/2 EELVs per trip, and the chunks are manageable in size; it really isn't a Lego-launch system.

Lunar fuel makes it even better because one EELV can launch the solar-ion tug, its fuel, and the lunar lander/launcher and fuel enough to land it on the moon. If the solar-ion tug is small and underpowered and we are willing to wait, the launch might be able to carry a fuel-making system to the moon as well. Then the lunar lander/launcher could refuel on the lunar surface, fly to the lagrange point or to a high lunar orbit, and wait for the CEV to come along, land it, refuel, and launch itself, the fuel for the next flight, and the CEV back to the Lagrange point.

At that point each EELV would only have to launch the CEV, crew, and the chemical stage to push the CEV to Lagrange. That's relatively efficient, low-mass, low-cost lunar transportation. If one could fly lunar fuel back to low earth orbit, each EELV could launch a CEV with lots of supplies and a larger crew, or a 15 or 20 tonne cargo flight to the moon. One could build a lunar base at a reasonable pace and at reasonable cost (I think) if each EELV could launch 20 tonnes that eventually landed on the moon. That's more cargo than the Saturn-V could transport to the lunar surface.

But the WHAT IFs are large. Is there lunar water? Can we utilize it in a cost-effective way? How expensive will be it to design and build a fuel manufacturing system? Do we have to fly astronauts to the moon first, thereby building an expensive lunar transportation system and later replacing it with a cheaper system? Will we have to design and build nuclear reactors, or can we remotely deploy solar panels on mountain peaks at the poles? Can we build a reasonably cheap and efficient solar-ion tug? Can we reuse and refuel it? Will it have to use expensive xenon, or could it use other, cheaper propellants? Can we fly lunar water to low earth orbit as well in a cost-effective manner?

OR: is it cheaper to build an SDV and do all this the way we already know how to? Of course, if we later utilize lunar water, we will be criticized for sticking to expensive, old-fashioned technology when cheaper, new technology was available. We will be designing a system that possibly has way too much capacity for our needs, or we will be accused ot trying to fill the capacity with pork-barrel lunar launches.

I don't know the answer to these questions. I think the Shuttle-derived vehicle now has momentum in ways it did not last year, partly because of politics: no one wants to eliminate a big program entirely. An SDV would allow the shuttle infrastructure and team to continue, albeit in a smaller scale. I think the EELV approach will work, but it is complex and there are many possible points where it becomes expensive. It's a shame NASA doesn't have a crystal ball.

-- RobS

clark · 2004-03-25 14:49:37

I wouldn't want to do this using EELVs; you'd need four 27-tonne launches (especially since my numbers may be a bit low).

12 launches a year, 4 every 3-4 months, equals a regular 45-120 day stay on the lunar surface by exploration teams.

Increased production of EELV to meet consistent demands allows for costs to decrease for other third parties. It brings the price down the same way those who adopt technologies early bring the price down for other consumers later.

I also think SDV is favored, in some capacity, but I don't think the argument is resolved.

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-25 15:08:08

That would be alot of launches, but it would be do-able via EELV. Making a ship for Mars though, the the figures will quickly get out of hand. I worry that if Nasa is going to use all the EELVs, what will the USAF fly their stuff on?

Let me reiterate, that the usual supply/demand intuition is not very applicable to spaceflight. If the Boeing factory can build 20 CBC rocket cores per year, then expanding it to build more will not nessesarrily decrease the cost. The simple fact is that these rockets are not built in any substantial number and are too delicate to build/operate for economies of scale to be a major factor. You also have to take into account the extra cost of expanding said Boeing factory, hiring more engineers, maybe adding another Delta-IV pad to Cape Canaveral. Say you can knock $5M off the cost of a $200M rocket? Big deal.

I still don't see any private use for such big rockets anyway, and the many single-CCB rockets built would still be too expensive to carry satelites.

clark · 2004-03-25 15:18:35

I worry that if Nasa is going to use all the EELVs, what will the USAF fly their stuff on?

USAF has a problem using the exsisting capacity as it is- note Boeing and Lockheed cutting back on development, or canceling EELV production completely. having NASA buy from them strengthens our position in the global marketplace for launch systems. It also helps to alleviate the burden placed on DOD to keep those birds flying. The military *needs* at least two different launch options at all times.

If the Boeing factory can build 20 CBC rocket cores per year, then expanding it to build more will not nessesarrily decrease the cost.

True, but it may very well reduce costs. The EELV have a basic design, and then they just add extra rockets for bigger loads. Modular approach. If Boeing or Lockheed get guareented number of launches per year, they can start making investments based on those contracts. They can receive loans, issue bonds, or whatever other financial magic they can muster. Fit's and starts in production and utilization cause a factory to have down time- something you don't want, and something we currently get with the private launch industry.

It also means that one of these private companies cans tart looking at sending up orbital tourists of their own, like Russia. We're not going to get that on an HLLV/SDV.

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-25 15:52:52

I doubt it would very much. Nasa and the USAF could probably get away with just flying Delta-IV/Atlas-V rockets at or within 50% additional of their current capacity.

It takes a certain number of dollars to build those expensive engines, make those expensive flight control parts, and pay engineers to build the things... I don't see a small increase in demand making a signifigant difference on these essentially inelastic costs.

Ad Astra · 2004-03-28 12:45:22

If we build an SDV, it should be privately operated in the smae fashion as the EELV is. That way it could be commercially marketed. At thi point its hard to envision a commercial application for such a big rocket. But once you open that door, I'm sure somebody will think of a use for it.

The best way to go about this is for NASA to request proposals for a launch vehicle with a certain (large) payload that can operate using existing facilities. Boeing, LockMart, and other competitors will release proposals, and NASA will select "the best" from the group to receive a given amount of development funds and a number of guaranteed launches. The winning team will agree to hire the shuttle personnel who are deemed necessary to SDV operations; the rest will be reassigned to other NASA posts or laid off.

GCNRevenger · 2004-03-28 13:07:47

Nasa doesn't really operate any launch vehicle independantly anymore, Boeing/LockMart aka "United Space Alliance" do most of the Shuttle work, Rocketdyne helps with SSMEs and Aerojet the SRBs, but Nasa itself is a small piece of the puzzle. The majority of our rockets since the end of Gemini (USAF Titan missile) to Shuttle have been at least partially built and operated by contractors with Nasa taking on a system-level role and not interfering that much. Its fair to say that Nasa doesn't build or operate rockets to any large degree anymore.

If we were going to build a brand new vehicle, then the traditional bid/downselect/develop model would work, but if we are going to make an HLLV based off the Shuttle stack, I think it might be better to have United Space and NASA do it, intead of handing it off to any one big contractor.

I also have strong doubts that anybody outside of the government (USAF/NASA) will have a use for a HLLV for the forseeable future. Launch costs today on American rockets are too high for satelites as it is, there isn't a good commertial use for Earth orbit beyond this that anybody would invest in.

JammerG55 · 2004-04-02 12:24:05

What we need is to quit all the belly aching :angry: !!!
What would really be useful is if the entire world had people that would work together as a team. sure there needs to be compitetion and individual support , but we will never really get to win if we don't work together.

RobS · 2004-04-02 12:49:40

Another factor determining commercial demand for launch vehicles is the method used to lift satellites to geosynchronous orbit. The delta-v to geosync (2.5 km/sec to achieve a transfer orbit, 1.6 km/sec to circularize the orbit, total of 4.1 km/sec) is more than to a low lunar orbit (3.2 km/sec escape from Earth, 0.7 km/sec orbit insertion, total 3.9 km/sec) and is more than enough to send a vehicle to Mars (3.8 km/sec, Hohmann trajectory from LEO). Right now that's accomplished by a chemical stage with the result that only 30-40% of the LEO mass can be a satellite in geosynch. But if we switch to solar ion, the mass deliverable to geosynch can double, and that means commercial services can halve the number of launchers they purchase! And ion engines are the way of the near-term future; more and more vehicles are using them, NASA's investing in them, and Prometheus is using them (with nuclear power instesd of solar of course). This is a complicating factor, you might say.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-03 12:34:45

Yeah, that would make the cheap foreign launchers even more attractive, and SDV or EELV-HLV even less used for commertial flights, but might make a large moon base easier.

RobS · 2004-04-03 22:54:33

It occurs to me that the really big demand for launchers will arrive when we have tourism to low earth orbit. They'll need a place to go and stuff to consume when there. Until then, the satellite market is not enough to drive down costs.

-- RobS

Bill White · 2004-04-03 23:35:04

It occurs to me that the really big demand for launchers will arrive when we have tourism to low earth orbit. They'll need a place to go and stuff to consume when there. Until then, the satellite market is not enough to drive down costs.
-- RobS

And the really, really big demand will happen when some group chooses to emigrate for reasons that are fairly price inelastic.

I saw this quote from Sundays NY Times columnist Tom Friedman:

President Dwight Eisenhower said: If a problem can't be solved as it is, enlarge it.

GCNRevenger · 2004-04-04 10:30:46

Which ain't going to happen without some commodity being discoverd or the gov't putting up the money to help develop space tourism/travel.

Even zero-G manufacturing isn't that useful anymore, with the use of "free fall" spinning solution chaimbers.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-07-16 18:21:21

I think Glenn is a great man, he is much respected around the world and has lots of ideas and experience on this area, I'm not to sure about the Bush plan I think there might be a few flaws in it

MarsDog · 2004-07-17 00:12:48

The present plans are just priming the pump.
Lot of talk before the new space race starts.
The country that dominates space will control events,
similar to British control, during the colonial period.

dicktice · 2004-07-17 12:57:55

Assuming Bush & Co are voted out of office. will "The Bush Plan" live on to immortalize him as the originator? Neither Zubrin or von Braun or even Kennedy, have been given such recognition. "Moon/Mars Plan" or something like that, would be preferable to giving that so-and-so a free ride, historically.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2004-09-25 04:02:23

People have lost faith in the Bush plan, many say it was just a stunt and since he announced his idea there are a number of high people who have seen some problems with it plus many American magazines have made a joke of Plan-Bush to Mars

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/BushLig … aughon.gif

http://www.fakewiz.com/fakes/20040217_b … h_mars.jpg

'How do I get back' the cartoon looks like a silly joke but is it?

Bush had outlined a pay-as-you-go approach, NASA's portion of the $2.2 trillion federal budget will have to be $16.2 billion in 2005, up from $15.5 billion in 2004. However with the shakey economy, the cost of security and bombings in Iraq , congress cutting NASA on the Apollo aniversary and rising debt it looks like the Bush plan might have been a stunt. The Major components of the president's plan, must be approved by Congress for NASA to anywhere near Mars again, and after the Genesis crash there are some calling for more safety checks and better management from NASA.
Going to Mars is a wonderful idea but is plan-Bush the right way to do it?

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-08-01 17:11:57

George Stephanopoulos. Topic will NASA have to rescue the Discovery astronauts ? - Guests: shuttle commander Eileen Collins and crew, John Glenn, former senator and astronaut; Buzz Aldrin. John Glenn again had the right stuff in an interview with CNN's Jeff Greenfield. One of the reasons for the rapid rise of the American space program was effective education in the sciences and a commitment to research, In 1998, U.S. students ranked 15th among 16 nations in math and dead last in physics. Issues such as science education, sex education, gay rights and stem cell research cannot be discussed rationally if religious beliefs are put ahead of science. Would you Adam 'n' Eve it with the dinosaurs in Eden ? There is the dinosaur museum which is to take a creationist perspective and already thousands of people have flocked to its top-quality exhibits which mix high science with fundamentalist theology that few serious scientists accept. In general math and science, the United States ranked 19th of 21 nations, ahead of only Cyprus and South Africa. George Stephanopoulos spent the first segment of This Week interviewing astronauts aboard the space shuttle - Steph also interviewed Sen. John Glenn, NASA engineer Don Nelson and Buzz Aldrin. (ABC) talks to the astronauts: Collins, Kelly, and Kamarda on discovery, and Glenn. The Whitehouse has now to keep the Evangelicals happy, some papers refered to it as Bush, Darwin, Stem-Cells and the war on science and now we see that Mars Telecommunications Orbiter (MTO) has been axed.

publiusr · 2005-08-25 13:11:09

That Glenn should shut up, just because you went into space twice dont make you an expert.

Seconded.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-09-26 10:15:31

That Glenn should shut up, just because you went into space twice dont make you an expert.
Seconded.

but maybe he's more of an expert about GW's vision - than Bush himself is

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-26 15:50:51

Blah blah blah, just Bush and America bashing Yang...

GWB has M. Griffin and a large number of very smart people at NASA and in the various comissions to advise him.

And Glenn has...?
Thought so. Glenn is just attacking the president, which seems to be a sport in Washington.

"People have lost faith in the Bush plan"
Says who? Says you? I haven't. And a cheap-shot political cartoon does not make a majority of "people."

There is one simple reason why VSE is probobly not a stunt: if NASA can't pull it off, then NASA is probobly doomed.

Now about those supposed horrible test scores Yang... YOU have no business quoting them as a symbol of America's downfall for one very simple reason: the tests aren't mandetory. The exam given to guage the performance between countries aren't mandetory, or at the least don't count tward a students' grade. So, American students don't put much effort into the exams, not like other countries (esp China and Germany) hype and pump up and bribe their students to motivate them.

So, the test is useless.

Commodore · 2005-09-26 17:08:01

One of the reasons for the rapid rise of the American space program was effective education in the sciences and a commitment to research....

The reason for the rapid rise of the American space program was we got the better pick of German scientists after WW2. Improving the the education system does not provide such a turnaround in such a short span.

EuroLauncher · 2006-01-14 02:46:47

Can EELVs possibly finish ISS?

I'm not so sure about that

publiusr · 2006-01-27 16:56:25

Agreed. The shuttle's payload is all payload. EELV launched segments would have to have a pretty good mass fraction dedicated to rendevous, docking, etc and would wind up looking more like the J. Verne ATV than the segments that were designed for the shuttle to wrangle.

ISS segments were designed to fly on Shuttle. EELV is no good beyond comsats and such. The astronauts like them less than the Stick.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2004-03-25 09:18:56

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#152 2004-03-25 14:24:43

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#153 2004-03-25 14:49:37

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#154 2004-03-25 15:08:08

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#155 2004-03-25 15:18:35

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#156 2004-03-25 15:52:52

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#157 2004-03-28 12:45:22

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#158 2004-03-28 13:07:47

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#159 2004-04-02 12:24:05

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#160 2004-04-02 12:49:40

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#161 2004-04-03 12:34:45

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#162 2004-04-03 22:54:33

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#163 2004-04-03 23:35:04

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#164 2004-04-04 10:30:46

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#165 2004-07-16 18:21:21

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#166 2004-07-17 00:12:48

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#167 2004-07-17 12:57:55

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#168 2004-09-25 04:02:23

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#169 2005-08-01 17:11:57

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#170 2005-08-25 13:11:09

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#171 2005-09-26 10:15:31

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#172 2005-09-26 15:50:51

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#173 2005-09-26 17:08:01

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#174 2006-01-14 02:46:47

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

#175 2006-01-27 16:56:25

Re: Glenn Criticizes Bush Space Plan - says direct-to-Mars is the way to go

Board footer