Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

RobertDyck · 2005-02-18 08:03:07

Also, I don't think we need to test an ISRU plant, its just a chemical plant and it can be tested right here on Earth just fine.

Everything is "simple" after it's developed. Considering the number of failures on Mars, do you really want to bet the lives of the first Mars expedition on untested hardware? ISRU does require testing, but it uses Mars atmosphere so it can't be tested on the Moon. The only way to test it is a robotic sample return mission.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-18 11:38:04

Except that that isn't true Robert, we can make Martian air right here on Earth just fine. We know is chemical composition, its temperature, its density, and thats all we need to know. Add a two-stage electrostatic and fiber mesh air filter to the Mars ISRU plant and there is no physical difference between Martian air and simulated air. Opinions to the contrary are without merit, because the molecules in the Martian atmosphere are the exact same kind as those here on Earth. To say that "you can't make it just like Mars air" is nonsense, yes we can make it just like Mars air. We can test it more throughly right here on Earth. (Believers in the anti-scientific precautionary principle need not reply).

And, as you are so fond of pointing out about the nice things of MarsDirect, the crew will not even be sent until the actual operational ISRU plant has completed its conversion and the fuel is awaiting use.

---

You are still missing the point Bill, that we don't need any Lunar space station to begin with; if you want to transfer a crew between a lander and another ship, why not simply dock them together? Besides, you would need to use the accursed tiny Soyuz hatches that have been so much trouble. Nor is the FGB-2 well suited to do anything except hold people, as it is not a fuel depot nor is designed to become one. Russia also has no maneuverable TLI stage appropriate to push it to L1.

Oh, and we aren't under and circumstance going to send a billion dollars Russia's way for any space hardware of any kind I don't think.

clark · 2005-02-18 11:48:34

If the first return is 2020 and its all expendables for a while thereafter NOTHING INTERESTING WILL HAPPEN until the middle of the 2030s.
Why should any of us care, except in the most hypothetical or academic manner?

"I want it NOW."

If you're truly passionate, then you'll care. It's a generational commitment (even if we could go today). You and I would both make lousy Martian settlers Bill. But for those who would make good ones, I think they should have every chance on two worlds.

BWhite · 2005-02-18 11:58:13

You are still missing the point Bill, that we don't need any Lunar space station to begin with; if you want to transfer a crew between a lander and another ship, why not simply dock them together? Besides, you would need to use the accursed tiny Soyuz hatches that have been so much trouble. Nor is the FGB-2 well suited to do anything except hold people, as it is not a fuel depot nor is designed to become one. Russia also has no maneuverable TLI stage appropriate to push it to L1.
Oh, and we aren't under and circumstance going to send a billion dollars Russia's way for any space hardware of any kind I don't think.

"Need" is one of those words that requires us to identify objectives.

What is the objective of the VSE? Exploration, right.

Define exploration. No one in the Administration has defined that word. That is why we cannot say what we "need" and "do not need"

= = =

If we "need" honest-to-God RLVs to develop space then the VSE is essentially smoke and mirrors because there is NO funding for RLV R&D in the pipeline.

Edited By BWhite on 1108749514

clark · 2005-02-18 12:00:21

Exploration: To boldly go where no man has gone before... oh never mind.

Exploration, to push beyond our current limits and understandings. Doing things we have never done before.

VSE seems to encompass that pretty well.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-18 12:38:34

Oh come on Bill, now you are just mincing petty symmantics... do you mean that we should have the next 50 years planned to the detail?

Building an RLV or a fully reuseable Lunar lander doesn't make much sense until you have a Lunar base to fly in & out of, and setting up one would be better handled by large expendable rockets.

BWhite · 2005-02-18 12:55:25

Exploration: To boldly go where no man has gone before... oh never mind.
Exploration, to push beyond our current limits and understandings. Doing things we have never done before.
VSE seems to encompass that pretty well.

clark, you of all people should understand that words cannot be trusted. ???

If "exploration" means some uniformed US officers collect moon rocks in the mid 2020s and come home, I'd say spend the money on midnight basketball programs and robotic exploration.

Unless we go to stay, there ain't no reason to send humans at all.

And if we insist on using EELV and refuse to buy Russian and spend nothing for RLV R&D we cannot afford to go to stay.

BWhite · 2005-02-18 13:07:25

Building an RLV or a fully reuseable Lunar lander doesn't make much sense until you have a Lunar base to fly in & out of, and setting up one would be better handled by large expendable rockets.

I agree.

Dump supplies and robotic regolith processors on Luna with big dumb expendables. Service the robotics with crew that shuttles between L1 and the lunar surface.

As for "re-useables" start with the easiest leg of the journey - - Moon to L1. A re-useable Moon to L1 spacecraft would be far far easier to build than an RLV for travel from Florida to LEO and back. This guy need never return to LEO and therefore does not need aerocapture heat shields or parachutes or anything like that.

If we mine lunar oxygen (which is supposed to be pretty easy) methane and/or LH2 is all that needs to be shipped to L1 from Earth. That is a significant savings right there.

Also, the mass of the lander travels between LEO and L1 only once as crew transfer between L1 and Earth happens with CEV or private vendors.

IIRC, a purely lunar orbit is inherently unstable for a permanent station - - that is why L1 may be the right place.

No Russian stuff? Okay. Buy Bigelow and launch with EELV+ to L1. Build our own lunar lander.

= = =

But, why are we going to the Moon at all? Ignore romantic vague puffery and answer "why" in a cogent manner.

Then and only then should we discuss how.

clark · 2005-02-18 13:08:18

Unless we go to stay, there ain't no reason to send humans at all.

What's the reason to stay? That's part of what we answer by exploring. You want guareente's, well, there isn't any. If there is no good reason to stay, then why should we commit to doing it? Yeah, spacefaring civilization is the reason, right? Well it's just a theory. Theories need to be tested. We need to take first steps.

Committing to staying before we understand the scope of the commitment is simply unwise and nothing more than passionate lunacy caused by a pet desire.

You want it all upfront without having to go through the first stages, and without answering all the questions. It dosen't make sense to most people, so you have to moderate your expectations.

clark · 2005-02-18 13:18:28

But, why are we going to the Moon at all? Ignore romantic vague puffery and answer "why" in a cogent manner.
Then and only then should we discuss how.

To prepare for going further in the solar system. Not just destination Mars, but the whole damn place.

Just because we went to the Moon a handful of times, 30+ years ago, with machines no longer built, and plans now lost, dosen't mean we can just up and do Mars. We have effectively gone no where since the last Apollo mission that would allow us to go further than the Moon. And if you look at the history of Apollo, most concur we were damn lucky to get away with no loss of life during those missions.

If most think that we can do Mars, it makes more sense to make sure we can do the Moon to guage our level of expertise, without going to far, to fast.

When multi billions are required for manned missions, success has to be pretty much guareented. All Mars mission scenerio's are too high risk right now (you trade more risk for less time). Mars is the destination after the Moon- after we make sure the basic elements of going beyond the Moon-Earth space are working properly.

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-18 13:30:59

You are too fixated on the "why" part Bill, that there need not be any particular tangible return on the investment. Why should we go to Mars? And where after that? All that is nessesarry is to know that going is a positive thing. Stop being such the accountant... If we wait to come up with "an bottom line return" that will make enough accountants happy, then we aren't ever going to go anywhere. We know that any of the Lunar options should start with a minimal manned presence sent by expendable rockets.

If you want to set up a Luanr base, then that will involve humans actually staying, not visiting, on the surface. There is simply no good reason for people to spend any time in L1 at all, the most you could need is an unmanned fuel depot. Remember, L1 is also above the Van Allen belts, so that putting a manned space station there is probobly a stupid idea without very heavy shielding. Earth is alot closer to the Sun then Mars too, so solar flares are more intense.

"If we mine lunar oxygen (which is supposed to be pretty easy) methane and/or LH2 is all that needs to be shipped to L1 from Earth. That is a significant savings right there."

But it would be an even bigger weight savings not to have to launch the lander, its fuel to climb into Lunar orbit, and even more fuel to land again. The only way a reuseable lander makes sense is if the Moon can provide its own Hydrogen OR we get a seriously mega-cheap RLV that makes it cheap enough to send it.

"And if we insist on using EELV and refuse to buy Russian and spend nothing for RLV R&D we cannot afford to go to stay."

The Russian hardware is WAY too expensive compared to what we need for a Lunar development. We're not talking $1,000/lbs, we're talking <$400-500/lbs.

AGAIN, the political reality is that the US will never send any big money to Russia for space hardware ever again. Its just not going to happen, no way no how.

BWhite · 2005-02-18 15:36:29

Looks like http://www.spaext.com/]Michael Huang has purchased a fair number of google ads leading to this web site.

It's a pretty good "why" IMHO - - but unless we all start talking like this and stop shuffling "why" under the rug - - sustainability will be a perpetual problem.

= = =

A year ago, I raised these same questions and clark said, slow down, wait for the Aldridge Commission report.

Okay.

So when do we ask the "why" question? 2020?

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-18 18:36:50

You miss the point though Bill... we could talk and talk forever, while as long as we talk and talk and talk some more, the rockets will always be stuck on the ground.

RobS · 2005-02-18 21:25:53

GCN, do you think it is possible to build a system that can put cargo in LEO for $500/lb? You make mention of the idea above, so I am curious.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-18 23:35:31

I think that a true "no really!" RLV (able to fly weekly with a Proton sized payload, fully reuseable heat shield) could reach this price point, yes.

But really, my point being is that even the cheaper Russian rockets are a long way from being "too cheap to meter" where throwing them away to bring up fuel for reuseable vehicles makes sense.

clark · 2005-02-19 12:55:07

It's a pretty good "why" IMHO - - but unless we all start talking like this and stop shuffling "why" under the rug - - sustainability will be a perpetual problem.
= = =
A year ago, I raised these same questions and clark said, slow down, wait for the Aldridge Commission report.
Okay.
So when do we ask the "why" question? 2020?

Why? Your answer, colonization.

Never mind that such an answer is viewed as adolescent fantasy by most of the public, but it will simply bog the whole endeavour down in one particular belief.

VSE is not about Mars, or Moon, or Jupiter, or Asteroid X. VSE is not about colonization, nor should it be.

Let me put it this way: whats the point of fundamental or theoretical research? It dosen't neccessarily lead to anything practical. Why straight jacket VSE when it is a fundamental research program?

Don't be upset because it isn't exactly what you want, be happy it leads to what you want. :;):

BWhite · 2005-02-19 13:06:55

It's a pretty good "why" IMHO - - but unless we all start talking like this and stop shuffling "why" under the rug - - sustainability will be a perpetual problem.
= = =
A year ago, I raised these same questions and clark said, slow down, wait for the Aldridge Commission report.
Okay.
So when do we ask the "why" question? 2020?
Why? Your answer, colonization.
Never mind that such an answer is viewed as adolescent fantasy by most of the public, but it will simply bog the whole endeavour down in one particular belief.
VSE is not about Mars, or Moon, or Jupiter, or Asteroid X. VSE is not about colonization, nor should it be.
Let me put it this way: whats the point of fundamental or theoretical research? It dosen't neccessarily lead to anything practical. Why straight jacket VSE when it is a fundamental research program?
Don't be upset because it isn't exactly what you want, be happy it leads to what you want. :;):

The VSE is NOT funding any fundamental research whatsoever.

Everything we intend to deploy between now and 2020 could be purchased from the Russians for substantially less than we propose to pay Lockmart or Boeing.

Okay, there may be good national security reasons not to do that. Then that makes the VSE all about catching up with Russian capabilities while starving the Russians of cash.

Edited By BWhite on 1108840210

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-19 13:19:42

Catching up? What on or above the Earth are you smoking Bill? The Russians don't have the nessesarry skills or technology to do something like that.

Restartable cryogenic engines? Copied from us, inferior to RL-60
Lander technology? Nope
40MT class booster? Nope, not even Angara-V
100kwe class nuclear reactor? Uh uh
Inflatable HABs? Ha

No, I don't think we could even trust the Russians to do it with unlimited funding.

A few more things...:
-Unproven trans-earth reentry safety for Soyuz, Klipper cannot return by this most efficent route.
-Inferior Russian experience with space-rated electric vehicles
-Known storage issues for corrosive & toxic hypergolic propellants that Russia favors
-Inferior Russian experience with teleoperation
etc etc etc.

clark · 2005-02-19 13:33:31

The VSE is NOT funding any fundamental research whatsoever.

Nuclear Propulsion? Development of human transport beyond LEO? Developing mitigation strategies for long duration space missions? Development of improved closed loop life cycle?

Bill, this is the fundamental research and development that must be done before we can address if colonization is feasible!

BWhite · 2005-02-20 20:43:19

The VSE is NOT funding any fundamental research whatsoever.
Nuclear Propulsion? Development of human transport beyond LEO? Developing mitigation strategies for long duration space missions? Development of improved closed loop life cycle?
Bill, this is the fundamental research and development that must be done before we can address if colonization is feasible!

Found this quote at spacepolitics.com

Yet again NASA has completely botched the space nuclear effort. Prometheus will be come nothing more than a job works/engineer training program for the DOE NR laboratory. Given the number of young engineers at NR, the maturity of existing NR reactor designs, and need to keep these lab guys employed now that the latest carrier and submarine reactor design efforts are essentially complete and have progressed to manufacturing and deployment, the NASA nuclear effort is nothing more than a funding bridge to the next reactor effort that is 3-4 yrs down the road. To support the VSE, a reactor design compatible with lunar/martian surface operations is a different beast than a deep space NEP reactor due to material issues. Both concepts are completely out of the realm of experience of DOE-NR which deals with water reactors. It will take them several years just to get comfortable with the materials issues let alone optimizing the design for space applications. By then, public and congressional support will likely have evaporated.

What space rated reactor research are we really doing?

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-20 21:35:27

I feel a "NASA = Stupid" moment coming on...

Just who exactly IS qualified to develop portable, reliable nuclear reactors in the high-kw/low-mw range Bill? The folks way back when in the SNAP-10/SP-100n and NERVA are long gone.

With no example reactor of the scale needed to copy from like NERVA, we aren't left with much to start on. At least the folks at DOE know how to build reactors working at all, which is a leg up on most design bearaus.

BWhite · 2005-02-20 21:41:07

I feel a "NASA = Stupid" moment coming on...
Just who exactly IS qualified to develop portable, reliable nuclear reactors in the high-kw/low-mw range Bill? The folks way back when in the SNAP-10/SP-100n and NERVA are long gone.
With no example reactor of the scale needed to copy from like NERVA, we aren't left with much to start on. At least the folks at DOE know how to build reactors at all, which is a leg up on most design bearaus.

My point is that space rated reactors do not appear to be getting any significant funding as part of the VSE. No one is working seriously on any of this.

Google tells me David Poston has done some really great work, mostly in his free time!

Even the Mars surface nuke needed to run the Zubrin's Sabatiers in MarsDirect does not exist yet and is not part of anyone's current funding.

= = =

Could the US blow the doors off the rest of the world? IMHO, yes =IF= we fund the R&D.

Soyuz is primitive but it works. STS is fundamentally unsafe and staggeringly overpriced and we have no plan B outside of viewgraph dreaming.

= = =

Any NASA-bashing is intended for the top echelons, not our nuclear engineers who I believe could build reactors using compressed helium and liquid metal with no problem if they were given a mandate and funding.

Edited By BWhite on 1108957529

GCNRevenger · 2005-02-20 21:46:40

No signifigant funding? I was under the impression that Prometheus was getting at least a large portion of what was requested.

"Soyuz is primitive but it works."

And this has what to do with space-based reactors? NOBODY, not America, not Russia, not France has ever built a large space reactor ever.

BWhite · 2005-02-20 22:46:57

No signifigant funding? I was under the impression that Prometheus was getting at least a large portion of what was requested.

Prometheus per se is being rolled into another project since we may not have the HLLV needed to fly JIMO and I do not believe there is any funding in the VSE - - whatsoever - - for reactors that can generate surface power (the MarsDirect reactor) or provide propulsion other than nuclear ion.

Prmoetheus also has a very long timeline and the snarky comment I snagged off of spacepolitics suggests that its really a "bridge" to keep the nuclear engineers employed until a new Navy propulsion project rolls around.

If we lack a clear "why" mandate for sending folks to the Moon and Mars permanently, why not move the Prometheus people into a new submarine project in 2009? Especially if budgets remain tight?

= = =
From the stolen comment:

To support the VSE, a reactor design compatible with lunar/martian surface operations is a different beast than a deep space NEP reactor due to material issues. Both concepts are completely out of the realm of experience of DOE-NR which deals with water reactors. It will take them several years just to get comfortable with the materials issues let alone optimizing the design for space applications. By then, public and congressional support will likely have evaporated.

Here is an interesting test.

=IF= we intend to continue development of reactors such as SAFE or using liquid metal heat transport after Prometheus (for surface operations on Moon/Mars for example) will we have enough qualified nuclear engineers in the pipeline to do that AND design the next generation reactors for military purposes?

Since no one has experience with the reactors we will need for genuine space exploration, are we telling grad students that liquid metal heat transport is an assured growth field? A guaranteed meal ticket for one's career?

I do not know, but it would seem easy enough to poll grad students at MIT or CalTech. If Prometheus is to be the tip of a very big push in the space-rated reactor field, then graduate advisors should know that already. If not, then who will build those reactors?

Or is that something we don't worry about until 2018 and afterwards?

Edited By BWhite on 1108962357

BWhite · 2005-02-20 23:04:21

I just re-read the full http://www.spacepolitics.com/archives/000446.html]space politics link. Credit to Jeff Foust

According to a Congressional source, NASA is planning to transfer $150 million in FY05 funding out of Project Prometheus to other, unidentified programs.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-02-18 08:03:07

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#52 2005-02-18 11:38:04

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#53 2005-02-18 11:48:34

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#54 2005-02-18 11:58:13

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#55 2005-02-18 12:00:21

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#56 2005-02-18 12:38:34

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#57 2005-02-18 12:55:25

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#58 2005-02-18 13:07:25

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#59 2005-02-18 13:08:18

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#60 2005-02-18 13:18:28

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#61 2005-02-18 13:30:59

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#62 2005-02-18 15:36:29

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#63 2005-02-18 18:36:50

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#64 2005-02-18 21:25:53

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#65 2005-02-18 23:35:31

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#66 2005-02-19 12:55:07

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#67 2005-02-19 13:06:55

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#68 2005-02-19 13:19:42

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#69 2005-02-19 13:33:31

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#70 2005-02-20 20:43:19

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#71 2005-02-20 21:35:27

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#72 2005-02-20 21:41:07

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#73 2005-02-20 21:46:40

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#74 2005-02-20 22:46:57

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

#75 2005-02-20 23:04:21

Re: Post central for information on CEV III - Continued from previous

Board footer