Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

Gennaro · 2004-07-26 02:54:28

Rxke, for manned missions (Mars Direct style) we need a heavy launcher. Has ESA to your knowledge payed any attention to this? (Of course that would be awfully expensive.)

Rxke · 2004-07-26 03:23:50

My knowledge about that is sketchy to say the least. IIRC, there is talk for a follow up launcher to the Ariane 5, but given the fact the Ariane 5 is 'spanking new' that might take awhile...
ESA is different to NASA, in that it is very industry-oriented, so they probably only start thinking about heavy boosters when they think it's a good challenge for industry (and if there's a market...)

(Edit: ) Next year or so they will bring out the next 'evolution ariane 5' (ECB, but given the problems with ECA, that might get delayed)

(Edit2 : ) http://www.launchers.eads.net/web2/comp … ue=en]EADS the manufacturer of Ariane is kind of vague about the future...

(Edit3 : ) http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Launchers_H … ml]Nothing about heavy launchers on ESA site...

SpaceNut · 2004-07-26 12:09:20

The ESA sure looks like a reusable shuttle, of course slightly improved.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rocketscience-04g.html

The Phoenix EADS SPACE Transportation is simular in concept.

Gennaro · 2004-07-26 12:27:58

Thank you, Rxke and Space Nut. It sure looks like information is very scarce. Indeed, it's so fluffy you almost get the feeling they are witholding something. 'Yeah, let the Russkies, Japs and Americans believe we are working on a shuttle wannabe, and when they eventually wake up it will all be too late!'.

Yep, all those images of conceptual shuttle derived craft makes for a lot of uneasy feelings. Launching satellites and manned interplanetary missions calls for entirely different categories of hardware, but the ESA seems to bundle them all up.
Most of all, we don't want a shuttle, not for LEO, not for anything!
Going to Mars we have to possess a heavy launcher. Nothing less than a Saturn 5 will do!

SpaceNut · 2004-07-26 12:33:42

That is where the problem of funding a clean slate approach will not make it in this climate of under-funding of Nasa.
So one must look at altering what we already make. Probably kludging the first attempts just to get us heading in the right direction again. While we look to what is really needed to accomplish the goal. But lets not wait to long to get going again.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-26 13:51:02

We don't HAVE to have a giant Saturn-V class rocket, but it sure would make life easier... an upgraded Atlas-V might be able to haul 40 metric tonnes to orbit, and it could do the job with a minimum of on-orbit assembly. It could do it really easy if we had nuclear rocket engines... There is a real possibility that "using what we have" in the Space Shuttle, to convert it into a heavy launcher, will cost more than Nasa can afford. Building a clean-sheet new heavy launcher is almost out of the question, since it would obviously cost in the region of $10Bn, perhaps more.

Rxke · 2004-07-26 14:38:58

And no way ESA will reach 40MT in the forseeable future...

The last decade they have done *a lot* of experiments with re-entry stuff (heatshields) so i guess they're clearly going to go the reusable way. Phoenix' low-altitude experiments have been a success, but of course there's no money allocated to build a full scale test-vehicule, and the engines ? ? ?
Yet, it looks like their approach is to keep on doing small scale experiments, so that, when the time comes, they have different options to choose from, they don't have to start from scratch (compare the lifting-body experiments of pre-NASA era, that became the airframe for the (scrapped) CRV...

BWhite · 2004-07-26 14:41:09

And no way ESA will reach 40MT in the forseeable future...

Unless they buy some lift from the Russians.

Euler · 2004-07-26 16:04:21

You know, the Ariane V's Vulcain engines are actually very similar in size and thrust to the J-2 engines that Saturn V used on its 2nd and 3rd stages. The Vulcain engines also have a pretty high ISP for a first stage (in fact, they have a higher isp than the J-2s did). If the Euros really wanted to build a big HLLV, they could probably lower development costs by building a Saturn V style rocket using upper stage engines derived from Ariane V. Of coarse, they would still need to develop some big lower stage engines.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-26 16:12:21

That would be a pretty big project Euler, even if they just used clusters of big SRBs instead of a large liquid fueled first stage/booster.

To my knowledge, Russia doesn't have a 40MT class launcher available at the moment... China might be able to pull off somthing like that in the near-ish future, but will take a little while still.

The US EELVs are built with relativly very light construction, making their fuel tanks and payload farings bigger should not be a huge undertaking.

ESA space shuttle? Please, that thing is a toy... it doesn't give them "options" or avoids the troubles NASA has had or anything of the sort...

Grypd · 2004-07-26 16:24:36

Reading the european union space site (note not ESA) it is quite specific that the year 2010 is when the plan to decide the next launch system will be taken.

There is not any reference to what form it takes except the mention of cheap reusability.

It has already been shown by the Mars society germany that a heavy launch version of arianne is capable if the money or will is there.

Gennaro · 2004-07-26 18:21:48

So it seems both Europe and the US already possess the basic equipment that could be upgraded to heavy launcher status?

One thing I just can't make sense of. If building a Saturn V from scratch in the 60's was possible (allright, not entirely from scratch, a predecessor like Atlas is derived from a 1950's ICBM, or so I'm told), how come it's beyond reach 40 years later, especially for the US, given four decades of increased productivity?
Is there something with our economical wisdom that isn't properly accounted for, something deeper than political squabblings and misused funds at the NASA level? As far as I know NASA is getting about the same budgetary means nowadays as it did in 1972, adjusted for inflation. At least Zubrin says so.

So close and yet so far away.

Euler · 2004-07-26 18:40:40

NASA's budget may be about the same as it was in 1972, but it is less than half what it was in the mid 60s. There are also varius ongoing projects (most notably shuttle and ISS) that eat up a lot of money and make it harder to fund an HLLV.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-26 18:54:38

Rebuilding the Saturn-V is not so much a matter of technology or infrastructure, its a matter of money really... As Euler mentioned, NASA has about half the money now by inflation, and what is oft overlooked is that the Saturn-V was -expensive-. Coming in at around $2.5Bn a shot, development of $40Bn dollars (est 1967 to 2002 dollars) having to throw away 11 expensive rocket engines and control systems, standing over 40 stories tall, and probobly would have trouble passing the man rating that NASA demands today.

If it costs more than $1Bn a shot, development costs amoratized within reason, it'll bankrupt NASA too.

comstar03 · 2004-07-26 21:01:39

Well,

We are now working with the Russians on the ISS well, what about using Energya / Energia Rocket System that is used for Buran Orbiter. It can handle 100+ Tonnes of Payload (LEO) and up to 32 Tonnes to Lunar Landscape, the Russians have the designs, specs, assemble and launch facilities.

Also , USA has only two major launch pads for space shuttle / apollo launch systems that would suggest the use of russian launch pad increasing the system capabilities.

Again limit cost and If the private space enterprises talk with the russian private corporations relating to the buran and energia systems you could have a service operational within a few years ahead of the push to the moon and mars developments.

:bars2:

Euler · 2004-07-26 21:02:42

Also, it is a bad sign that NASA's budget has only been keeping pace with inflation. NASA's budget should be able to keep pace with the expansion of the federal budget, or at least with GDP. That it has not shows that we are losing interest in space at a time when we should be working at becoming a spacefairing species.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-26 21:22:50

The Energia? Its very, very not coming back... the factory has been retooled, the engines are essentially gone (maybe one matched set left), the vehicle assembly building collapsed, the pad is questionable... It would be easier to build Shuttle-C probobly than to redo Energia all over again and use the Baikanour spaceport as the staging point for Lunar and Martian missions.

Commodore · 2004-07-26 21:40:18

The Energia? Its very, very not coming back... the factory has been retooled, the engines are essentially gone (maybe one matched set left), the vehicle assembly building collapsed, the pad is questionable... It would be easier to build Shuttle-C probobly than to redo Energia all over again and use the Baikanour spaceport as the staging point for Lunar and Martian missions.

The designs, and Russian expertise still exist, and it has capabilities far beyond anything we have or have proposed. Its also been tested.

It would require considerable investment in infrastructure, both here and in Russia (assuming we decide to use it for our forseeable heavy lift needs, which admittingly would require that NASA swallow its pride).

Also the boosters are still in use today on the SeaLift platform, so we've already got a head start.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-26 21:52:26

Yes, the designs do exsist, but so do the ones for the Saturn rockets... it would about be as easy to do counting the re-man-rating and the trouble of "moving" the whole business of launching the missions from Baikanour plus the cost (both monetary and political) of restarting the Russian rocket program.

In fact, it may be about as easy and better for the long-term to go clean-slate, given how little of the Russian infrastructure remains.

comstar03 · 2004-07-27 01:04:33

Well, GCNRevenger

I see you are a pro-nasa only building into space, BUT the objective to getting the russians involved would provide more engineers, scientists, and other space related professional work and expand their communities and the same time providing co-operation and bridge building between the western countries and western corporations.

The oversight can be NASA or a new global oversight organization, leaving NASA function like the Russian Space Program for internal activities and part of a global space program for large complex developments like the permanent orbiting platforms, moonbases and marsbases.

But, if the Pro-NASA Movement thinks that they can do it alone with little help from the world they are sadly mistaken, unless NASA gets a large ongoing increase in its annual budget. ( up to US$60 Billion per year ) This would allow NASA to build new launch pads, new manned and unmanned transportation vehicles for the space station, moon and mars operations.

:bars3:

Rxke · 2004-07-27 02:29:22

There was an article (Spacedaily, i'm pretty sure) about russian tech. They still use the same launchpad they used for Youri Gagarin's launch. A long as it works, they keep it the way it is (not that they have the money to build a new one, anyway...)

Also in the article, reporter was puzzled why no-one was cheering after a succesful sat.launch.
Operators: "Why? It's the stuff we do for a living, we're used to it..." Weird guys.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-27 02:32:23

As I understand it, the Shuttle was a 'clean slate' design. Would you really want to risk having the watchmakers screw up a next-generation HLLV in the same way? Would it not be better (and from a design PoV *safer*) to go with the existing plumber's design?

ANTIcarrot.

SpaceNut · 2004-07-27 07:11:41

One could say using a Delta or Atlas derivative is also the way to go but much like the shuttle derivatives is it economical since neither is a man rated vehicle to start with. Only the shuttle hardware is at this point.

In either case the question is where is the cash for development going to come from under a squashed budget?What is the timeline to manned flight?

Enough said about the rocket lets talk about the most important place on the rocket which houses the crew. Now depending on the launch format(winged or capsule) and the return re-entry landing style everything else is about size of crew, duration of use and easy of use to inside space demensioning.
Everything else that is needed is an add on module and or boosters for each stage.

Now lets not forget the reason why we are in this situation in the first place.
Foam that sheds on launch from the external tank that could and does strike the orbitor. Not fixed as of yet but being worked on for return to flight.
No escape abort of launch if severely damaged since unit did not have real time broadcast of data though it had recorded the damaging strike. Note this is one of the fixes for return to flight with leading edge sensors.
If a strike does make a hole no means for repair was possible while in orbit. Last I checked they where still working on hole size variety of patch capability.
This also introduced the need for safe haven retreat or secondary shuttle rescue launch if unrepairable.

Now with those things said some of these things could be difficult even under a clean slate design to resolve.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-27 08:12:06

Kerry's latest non-committal appearance at Kennedy Space Center speaks volumes about his disinterest in space exploration.
Since mankind's expansion into the solar system dwarfs all other political considerations, I guess all we can do, as space enthusiasts, is pray Kerry is defeated at the polls.
Nothing Bush has done or could do would be as heinous a crime as Kerry turning his back on mankind's only viable future - space.
???

clark · 2004-07-27 08:36:29

Well, I don't think Kerry is going to usher in a new era of space exploration... it just isn't in the cards. For some background on his history related to NASA and ISS:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.h … tml?id=965

John Kerry on Space 2004

It is a rather telling history.

However, I cannot just vote for Bush based on his space policy. I'll be living on planet Earth for some time, and the decisions made outside of space exploration will effect me far more.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-07-26 02:54:28

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#77 2004-07-26 03:23:50

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#78 2004-07-26 12:09:20

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#79 2004-07-26 12:27:58

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#80 2004-07-26 12:33:42

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#81 2004-07-26 13:51:02

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#82 2004-07-26 14:38:58

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#83 2004-07-26 14:41:09

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#84 2004-07-26 16:04:21

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#85 2004-07-26 16:12:21

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#86 2004-07-26 16:24:36

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#87 2004-07-26 18:21:48

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#88 2004-07-26 18:40:40

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#89 2004-07-26 18:54:38

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#90 2004-07-26 21:01:39

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#91 2004-07-26 21:02:42

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#92 2004-07-26 21:22:50

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#93 2004-07-26 21:40:18

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#94 2004-07-26 21:52:26

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#95 2004-07-27 01:04:33

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#96 2004-07-27 02:29:22

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#97 2004-07-27 02:32:23

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#98 2004-07-27 07:11:41

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#99 2004-07-27 08:12:06

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

#100 2004-07-27 08:36:29

Re: Kerry's position on space - any one know were Kerry stands

Board footer