Dr. Griffin's new architecture

Xaliqen · 2005-09-02 21:49:59

Well, it's not as though I'm an expert regarding the present situation over at NASA or in the government. But I can say the following seems pretty clear:

We have an opportunity to do things right in terms of building a vehicle that will take us to the Moon and, with upgrades, to Mars.

Building two man-rated vehicles is not feasible given the current time constraints and the available budget.

We need to fulfill our obligations to international partners in the ISS project.

Building a new vehicle fit to the constraints of the ISS would not be ideal if we had to use the same vehicle for the projects lining up in the VSE.

The 2010 deadline has good points and not so good points, which vary depending on who you talk to.
---

I understand some may take issue with some of these points. But, realistically, the budget for NASA is not going to be as big as many of us feel it should be. And we have to work within these constraints.

In my view, this means it's time to get creative. I'm very glad that Mike Griffin is running things at NASA, because he seems to understand this necessity.

At the same time, there are always politics involved, and convincing politicians of the necessity of cutting out pet projects is like pulling teeth from alligators.

Given these various factors, most of which are not new, and all of which are well-known, compromises will have to be made. The situation is NOT ideal and no one should pretend it is.

But one compromise I feel should not be made is in utilizing a side mount design in order to ensure ISS interoperability. The upgradeability of such a design is questionable. I feel there are other options available. Whether an automated cargo vehicle with the capacity and dimensions necessary to house the remaining modules and equipment bound for the ISS can be built into an in-line design is a truly challenging question. But it is one I strongly believe, given my faith in good aerospace engineers to come up with good solutions, can be answered in the affirmative. The question then becomes whether such an effort will even be attempted and fully explored before it is abandoned for an alternative that seems easier today, but will provide numerous possible headaches tomorrow.

In my opinion, we must not let this time to take the reigns pass us up. This is an opportunity that we cannot afford to squander for the sake of political expediency. Our methods and our purpose should have firmly set upon the future of mankind in outer space and on other planets as the guiding principle for our actions today. Given this necessary vision, we must also welcome the necessity of compromise. But we must neither sacrifice nor confuse this with the fate of our future exploration efforts. In any event, that's what I believe.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-02 22:30:48

Your grasp on the situation is pretty good, but with one missing piece... the time it takes to build the big new heavy lifter and the time remaining before ISS becomes too old to function.

Of course we could take the big inline heavy lifter and build a tug/cradle for ISS modules, but how long will that take? It would take two or three years to slap together Shuttle-C probobly, so 4-5 years or a bit more is probable for the big inline launcher, and another year on top of that for the tug/cradle and test flights... Perhaps six years just to start sending up ISS componets again.

The unoffical "mission end" date for the ISS is 2017, at least as far as America is concerned. Say it takes about a year to actually package, launch, and assemble the remaining ISS componets with the new heavy launcher... If work on the inline booster were to start Jan 1st 2006, then the ISS would be done with only a few years of ISS life left. This is one reason why NASA didn't resolve to pull the plug on Shuttle the day after the Columbia disaster.

The CEV and its launcher will probobly also take some time to build, with entry into service around 2012 or so at earliest, counting a few test flights. If the CEV, or at least a cargo varient, is built large enough to support the MPLM sized hatch then it could be used to bring up spare batteries, gyros, or other heavy items... but can the ISS wait that long? Another six, seven, or even eight years in its present two-man caretaker situation? Logistically, I think its questionable if the ISS can be sustained like this for so long, and the political penalty of having nothing to show for so many years of operations is also heavy.

Then there is the cost, financial and political, of paying Russia up to $130M a year for their price-gouging Soyuz seats.

And as a reminder, the date to return man to the Moon is 2018 at the moment, and so in the years preceeding it will be important for NASA to have as much money for VSE at its disposal as possible. BUT, billions of dollars would still be going each and every year to prop up the ISS until the year before first landing. By my estimation, 30-35% of NASA's manned spaceflight budget, if the cost of propping up the ageing station increases to $2.0Bn+ as NASA predicts (plus $1Bn for crew & cargo via CEV out of a $9-10Bn budget).

Just what do we hope to gain from the ISS again?

Additional: Creative? No. Now is not the time for creativity, now is the time to be realistic; to stop thinking that the ISS project as inevitible, and to stop pouring money hand over fist without any real bennefit besides not making France/Germany/Russia mad at us... oh wait.

Offer Japan a ride to the Moon and Mars in return for scrapping their module, and offer the same deal with ESA/RSA perhaps, but if they are adamant that we go through with finishing Russia's US-taxpayer-funded space hotel... then send them a check for the cost of the modules and tell them to take a long walk out a short airlock.

"Creativity" is a false hope, no amount of cleverness can change how hard the engineering challenges that face NASA and the ISS debacle to any degree that it changes the reality of the situation.

Xaliqen · 2005-09-02 23:06:54

GCNRevenger, I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that realism is absolutely necessary. What I meant by creativity was essentially akin to not giving up and not making do with a lesser alternative at the sacrifice of future exploration.

In any case, I certainly agree that it would be ideal for the ISS project to be minimized as much as possible. Even if that means abandoning certain partners. But the problem with this is obviously political, and it is the 'fingers' of politics that grasp NASA's purse-strings.

I understand that it really makes no logical sense to continue with the ISS project. But part of the reality of the situation, I believe, also lies in the illogical and sometimes outright dumb nature of politics. So, taking that into consideration, what can be done to compromise vis-à-vis the ISS while at the same time not compromising the present and future integrity of the VSE? I don't necessarily have a ready answer, but this is a question that, I believe, needs to be answered lest we're stuck with another system that doesn't cut it.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-03 10:09:45

The ISS design and supply lines have already been curtailed so much that the station will only be able to perform a small fraction of the science it was originally intended to do, and that science is the most expensive science of any set of experiments ever concieved by humanity. The bennefit of that science is so small compared to the mind-blowing cost, that its just a joke, a bad bad joke on the scientific community. Such a tragedy, a terrible tragedy, of all we could have learned for that money if it were spent elsewhere. And the tragedy is ongoing, NASA will spend perhaps $50,000,000,000 more on the station.

Really though, it is time to ask the question which has been "un-askable" for the last ten years... what do we really have to gain from this? As far as what the station is intended to do, the short answer is "nothing."

So, the only reason why the ISS project is still limping along, and why Shuttle is still being pressed into service despite killing two crews and bleeding NASA's finances and credibility dry, is politics... Just how big of a political cost would canceling ISS construction be? How big? Just how high a price is too high?

And how big is too big compared to the dismal future? Without the Michoud plant, Shuttle is going to be grounded even longer, which means that there is no way in heck that even a "kinda sorrta complete" ISS can be done by 2010... And then what?

Ad Astra · 2005-09-03 16:29:18

The hurricane's impact on the shuttle schedule is being exaggerated. NASA still has 2 or 3 ET's at the cape, and will likely perform the modifications there while power is being restored to Michoud.

idiom · 2005-09-04 18:08:38

Might it actually be cheaper to dump the shuttle and ISS now, and to use the monster booster to launch a single shot spacestation that incorporates the international components? Could the same economics that apply to replacing the Hubble rather than servicing it also apply to the ISS? All the science gets done, we have an on orbit way-station with a long life time ands we save a bunch o cash.

Oh and we have a Monster booster.

RobertDyck · 2005-09-05 03:05:19

Don't assume that either heavy lifter has to be man rated. Shuttle-C certainly doesn't, it's intended for orbital assembly so lift astronauts with a small vehicle. Don't make the mistake of ignoring the Challenger investigation recommendation, followed by the strong Columbia Accident Investigation Board recommendation of separating cargo from crew. Shuttle-C is for cargo only, not crew. That means not man rated.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-07 07:42:40

Coming soon: Moon, Mars mission specifics

official announcement won't come until mid-September, here's a sneak preview based on an internal NASA-Department of Defense memo

That stick is in...

The new cargo rocket, meanwhile, will give NASA the capability to launch into low-Earth orbit the parts that will be needed to assemble a 500-ton spaceship for an expedition to Mars.
No more than six assembly missions would be needed, Griffin said, adding that they could be carried out "in a matter of months."

Yahoo off to mars we will go..

Ad Astra · 2005-09-07 17:44:07

At the same time, a new ISS plan is coming together. The station will be disembowled compared to previous estimates (no Science Power Platform, one truss segment and solar array assembly gone, one of the Japanese modules will stay grounded.)

It makes the ISS expenditures seem like a waste of money, but it balances science needs with the inherent difficulties of operating the shuttle. The new ISS design can realistically be completed by the end of 2010, assuming that operations aren't impacted by Hurricane Katrina.

Of course, American expeditions to the moon will mean increasing European, Russian, and Japanese control over ISS. If they want to add on to ISS at a later date, more power to them. Kliper flights to ISS, with Proton delivering expansion modules? Sounds like a plan to me.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-07 20:25:46

Have made note of this in the ISS to mars woes thread earlier in the day. With regards to the number of shuttle flights being cut to 15 or so from the original 28.

A stink should be made by the partner nations that have hardware just sitting there at KSC waiting for a ride that is now being cut from the finished product as they have indicated.

See the links for the additional pieces not mentioned in the other thread.

publiusr · 2005-09-08 15:27:58

A wide-body skylab-like additon to ISS at the bottom might be in order. HLLV's first flight.

publiusr · 2005-12-30 16:41:01

Nice links here:
http://spacefellowship.com/Forum/viewto … 8304#18304

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-03-22 07:42:47

He has already tried to make some key changes to the VSE or plan-Bush

Visions missions like MSR and TPF look like they will be cut
Hubble will be repaired by Shuttle
Astrobiology and LISA got cut
Griffin will try to close the 2010-2015 gap
CEV Methane engine got dropped

cIclops · 2006-03-22 09:22:01

He has already tried to make some key changes to the VSE or plan-Bush
Visions missions like MSR and TPF look like they will be cut
Hubble will be repaired by Shuttle
Astrobiology and LISA got cut
Griffin will try to close the 2010-2015 gap
CEV Methane engine got dropped

None of those projects/points were mentioned in the VSE. In any case there is nothing wrong and everything right with cancelling bad projects and improving plans. Just because a project was proposed or even begun doesn't make it worth doing.

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-22 09:43:29

None of those projects/points were mentioned in the VSE. In any case there is nothing wrong and everything right with cancelling bad projects and improving plans. Just because a project was proposed or even begun doesn't make it worth doing.

Exactly, especially projects proposed by astronomers and physicists, whose appetite for money far exceeds their stature.

NASA also has to learn to hold its costs under control, which is a life or death situation, so if MSR and TPF's builders can't keep their wish lists under control or accurately budget their money, then they should be cut.

NASA is also on a schedule, they have support from Bush and Congress at the moment, but their lack of credibility and public support means that they have to get back into the exploration business, and do it quickly.

And do it while pouring ~$6Bn+ into Shuttle & ISS anually

So, NASA should rightly cut whatever isn't needed in the short term to get VSE started in a meaningful way. The most emblematic item is the methane engine: we don't need methane engines for the Moon, and building the engine was threatening to increase the development time and cost of the CEV, so it was rightly canceld.

SpaceNut · 2006-03-22 09:44:48

While these missions MSR and TPF look like they will be cut, Astrobiology and LISA got cut and the Griffin will try to close the 2010-2015 gap as such were notmentioned as part of the VSE. The indirect implications of getting the shuttle operation to include a Hubble mission and of future Methane fueled engines for Mars use.

Now as for cancellation of projects while many may end up being over run with cost and technical problems I find that funds already spent more of an issue...
Why are these companies allowed to offer services that they can not provide?

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-22 10:13:44

While these missions MSR and TPF look like they will be cut, Astrobiology and LISA got cut and the Griffin will try to close the 2010-2015 gap as such were notmentioned as part of the VSE. The indirect implications of getting the shuttle operation to include a Hubble mission and of future Methane fueled engines for Mars use.
Now as for cancellation of projects while many may end up being over run with cost and technical problems I find that funds already spent more of an issue...
Why are these companies allowed to offer services that they can not provide?

What companies? Not provide what?

EuroLauncher · 2006-03-22 10:31:11

What companies? Not provide what?

I suspect he may be talking about a heap of private companies and coporations that offering launch servies and CEV designs to NASA, but in reality many are working on shoestring budgets and will only be able to lift small payloads or even worse build rockets that explode on the launch pad....well I guess we should be happy as long as they don't start outsourcing this part of the VSE to India.

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-22 10:48:18

Now you are just being silly...

"rockets that blow up on the pad..."

Good thing most space science folk don't build their own launch vehicles, yes?

And the India outsourcing straw-man too.

EuroLauncher · 2006-03-22 12:54:25

Now you are just being silly...

Just because you suddenly start putting the word 'private' in front of something doesn't make it an automatic success. These guys are big on profit and love to cut and run once the going gets tough - and asides from all their usual problems have you forgotten all the disasters and failed projects of the private sector, Canadian Arrow looked nice but never went anywhere, Space Transport Corp's Rubicon 1 engines exploded on the launch-pad, Solar-sail explorations became a failure, guys like SpaceX have a nice and fancy powerpoint shows with their future Falcon rockets but some say Musk is dreaming and perhaps these guys watched too much Trek or played too many computer games thinking their 'BFR' is going to open up the final frontier. Musk may have some of the better designs than those others but the private sector now has a growing number of Spacefrauds.

publiusr · 2006-03-23 16:02:44

Good thing most space science folk don't build their own launch vehicles, yes?

You know--maybe they should be forced to.

As it stands the typical exchange between scientist and engineer is something like this:

Scientist: "I need to put a drilling platform on a lander to get some Martian core samples 30 feet down--now I need this to fit in that Delta II shroud."

Engineer: "What--are you kidding. You really think you can shrink that down and..

Scientist: "Quit being a baby and just do it."

Engineer: "You know--maybe what we need to do is to cancel some of these Delta II flights and spend the money on a bigger launch vehicle that can do more, like how that sizable Atlas V launched MRO was better than all previous probes."

Scientist: "No way--me share power with the likes of you?"

And so it goes.

SpaceNut · 2018-09-09 09:38:52

Its funny how a decade old discussion was right on for the direction of constellation to SLS and even a meantion of a BFR of sorts for what nasa was proposing.....

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-09-02 21:49:59

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#52 2005-09-02 22:30:48

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#53 2005-09-02 23:06:54

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#54 2005-09-03 10:09:45

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#55 2005-09-03 16:29:18

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#56 2005-09-04 18:08:38

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#57 2005-09-05 03:05:19

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#58 2005-09-07 07:42:40

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#59 2005-09-07 17:44:07

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#60 2005-09-07 20:25:46

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#61 2005-09-08 15:27:58

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#62 2005-12-30 16:41:01

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#63 2006-03-22 07:42:47

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#64 2006-03-22 09:22:01

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#65 2006-03-22 09:43:29

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#66 2006-03-22 09:44:48

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#67 2006-03-22 10:13:44

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#68 2006-03-22 10:31:11

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#69 2006-03-22 10:48:18

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#70 2006-03-22 12:54:25

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#71 2006-03-23 16:02:44

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

#72 2018-09-09 09:38:52

Re: Dr. Griffin's new architecture

Board footer