Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

EuroLauncher · 2006-03-19 02:22:23

Many Space-fans and Mars advocates have been just waiting for another Knight on a white horse to come and offer us another world like President Kennedy did.
Many other whitehouse-admins talked of the Moon and Mars, but none did anything serious. Then came Bush-Jnr's plan, his 'vision' speech was something of a surprise as the man had never showed much interest in space before then. During the recent union address the phrase "NASA" didn't didn't cross Bush's lips once.

I hope the VSE isn't dimming !

but the evidence is there :

MTO is dead, TPF delayed, NASA has dropped the Methane-Engine from CEV, Shuttle delayed again, MSR looks cut, outrigger Keck telescopes are gone....
I don't think there's a need for me to continue with the list of evidence ?

cIclops · 2006-03-19 03:34:46

Then came Bush-Jnr's plan, his 'vision' speech was something of a surprise as the man had never showed much interest in space before then. During the recent union address the phrase "NASA" didn't didn't cross Bush's lips once.

I hope the VSE isn't dimming !

but the evidence is there :
MTO is dead, TPF delayed, NASA has dropped the Methane-Engine from CEV, Shuttle delayed again, MSR looks cut, outrigger Keck telescopes are gone....
I don't think there's a need for me to continue with the list of evidence ?

VSE was never much to do with Bush; it was created by NASA and the space industry and community, using the opportunity of the Columbia accident to change direction from a passive science based agency to an active exploratory one.

MTO, MSR and TPF were all just vague plans and concepts, NASA has tons of them. The changeout of the CH4/LOX engine was an engineering decision to reduce risk and development time, it makes good sense as it is not needed for RTTM. Mars is still just as far away but the ESAS elements are now starting to be developed (CEV/CLV including the 5-stage SRB that wil be used on the HLV). Griffin has to make funds available for this work and there are lots of other demands for the budget .. STS/ISS and of course the *expanding* science program. Something had to give, unless the scientists can justify (or extract more money from congress) further expansion of their budget growth will be stopped until the STS has completed the ISS and been retired. Already that program is being zeroed out ... $12 billion has been cut from it. The scientists have controlled NASA for too long, if the STS prgram has to die, is it so unreasonable to ask the science program to delay their growth? As long as the budget holds, the VSE is safe.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-03-19 05:05:39

You can ask me and I'll answer un-biased honestly.... why ? Because I don't give damn who builds a lunar-colony, who finds Aliens on Europa, or what nation puts men on Mars...I'm a science fan and a fan of space explortation, and not a fan of political partys.

Everyone knows me here and knows my posts
50% of me thought the VSE was great ( we'll go to Mars )
The of half of me thinks the VSE may be flawed

We've got to look at where USA stands now, unless you want to start asking Euros or Russia for a lift to Mars ( which could happen as these guys have done good missions ) . But if you want to know where the USA is, I think we can safely start looking to the next Republican Vs Democrat election if we want to figure out where the heck we are going ?

The next would-be Presidents are easy to spot, they are the guys with the huge-ego and who think of themselves as the next G.Washington, JFK, Martin King, Catherine the great, AbrahamLincoln....
Here's is my list Newt Gingrich, Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, CondiRice, Mitt Antigay Romney, Kerry, McCain, George Pataki, Fred filmstar Thompson, Dick Cheney, Schwarzenegger, Jesse WWF Ventura, George P Bush the Hispanic nephew to GW ( another son of a Bush ), Lance Brown, Bill Frist, George NFL Allen, Howard Dean, Joseph Biden, Rudolph Giuliani, Wesley Clark
Bush may try and see his vision continue to 2008 but with some months United States will have a new president but what the heck does that mean for MSR, TPF or manned Mars flights ?

The only guy who totally supports space is the nutcase Howard Dean, candidate Dean would like a mirror image of nutcase Bush. Take for example FlashGordon and MingtheMerciless both are cartoon spacemen who want to fly across the universe but have totally different ideology. Dean unlike the other 2008 runners has expressed support for the concept for a human mission to Mars. The problem with Dean is that his Democrats think of him as a problem and rival Republicans will never like him because they see Dean as a radical liberal loony.

EuroLauncher · 2006-03-19 07:40:45

The Vision was very ambitious to begin with - perhaps overly ambitious with too many goals. Some space pioneers and scientists were critical of plan-Bush but then their concerns were dismissed being un-American to criticise Bush or dismissed as political attacks.
The Vision had many goals : Get the Shuttle to return, do a Mars Sample Return, build a CEV, set up Lunar base, finish the ISS, do 'visions missions' like JIMO and TPF, retire Shuttle in 2010, develop the SDLV, mine the Moon, put astronauts on Mars.

Commodore · 2006-03-19 14:34:23

Its not dimming, it just has way too much baggage and way too little funding and Presidential support. I know Bush has lots on his plate, but would it kill him to make more that one speech on it? The public would support it.

GCNRevenger · 2006-03-19 16:25:47

but the evidence is there :
MTO is dead, TPF delayed, NASA has dropped the Methane-Engine from CEV, Shuttle delayed again, MSR looks cut, outrigger Keck telescopes are gone....
I don't think there's a need for me to continue with the list of evidence ?

-MTO: would be dead by the time we are ready for manned flight. Still powerd by whimpy solar arrays.
-TPF: astronomy, which gets more then their share already. Hubble will cost >$10Bn over its life.
-Keck Outrigger: ditto
-MSR: sensitive to "kitchen sink" design and lack of price dicipline threatens it, not a cancelation to free up cash for VSE.
-CEV Methane engine: not needed for the Moon, and NASA has to build CEV while simultainiously flying Shuttle and fast.

publiusr · 2006-03-23 15:31:25

Well said. In the past 25 years, we have had one automated spacecraft after another after another.

The number of new manned craft? Zero.

So much for the lie that we don't spend enough on robotics.

In the 30-40 years between the first ICBM program and the EELVs first flights, we had no new launchers. In this same time period, many new airplanes were introduced.

So much for the lie that 'we don't spend enough on aviation.'

----
Science isn't going away--it is just that the engineers and rocketry folks are finally being remembered--and not just the pointy-heads and the white coats who got their way under Goldin. Time for the engineers to have some say.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-03-31 11:12:52

Lunar sooner ?
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4337

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-04-06 00:01:31

NASA says manned, robotic space flights should co-exist

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/show … =184428791

..Firouz Michael Naderi, associate director of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said that robotic vehicles can serve as precursor emissaries for later human visits, and can perform environmental analysis of the planet on a constant, real-time basis that would not be possible using human observation platforms.

SpaceNut · 2006-04-10 12:58:11

It would appear that the Russian's seem to think that we will fail. U.S. will fail to create new spaceship by 2010 to replace shuttle - NASA
But more damaging to the vision than the reliance of a ride to thestatio by an outdated soyuz comes in the post made in the CEV bullSh*t thread.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-10 13:27:15

Duh, we weren't planning on having the CEV/CLV ready until 2014 at latest

Austin Stanley · 2006-04-10 23:41:47

I think one of our problems is that we have been spending to much effort on purpouse built unmanned eploration craft, rather than mass produced multi-purpouse probes. In the earlier days of both the US and Russian space program building multiple simpler probes was the rule. Applying this to mars makes alot of sense. The majority of the cost of any probe is in desigining and testing it, not launching, building, or the actual hardware costs. Once you have a complete design, it only makes sense to build multiple copies of it instead of trashing the design and building something new.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-11 08:17:18

Agreed, for evidence of this you only have to look to the ESA Mars Express and Venus Express, which are much cheaper per-mission thanks to common hardware.

The cost of moving up to a larger launch vehicle (eg Delta-II to Delta-IV Medium) is probably smaller then the cost to purpose-build each and every probe to make it light enough to fit on the smaller rockets.

Build four different "bus" vehicles:
-Light inner planets (solar power)
-Heavy inner planets (solar power)
-Outer planets (nuclear power)
-Ion drive (solar, high Delta-V)

Each with common and scaleable power systems, communications, computers, and navigation. Build them with places for extra solar arrays for high power missions and with a "sensor platform" with swappable instrument packages. Force (IE: you will do this or you will not fly) the instrument builders to use common computer and power interfaces.

It won't be popular with the engineers who see virtue in a thing being light just for being light and not cheap, and it won't be popular with the engineers who will lose their jobs since they don't need to design probes from scratch, but SOMETHING has to give for NASA to continue being an agency of its present scope.

EuroLauncher · 2006-04-13 01:30:22

CEV/CLV is becoming very difficult road a shortfall seems to have been caused by errors in weight estimates they now need a five segment SRB which has never been flight tested, the CaLV looks great but the LSAM is still too large for the CaLV Heavy Lift, are Bush's manned plans falling apart ?

Jeff Bell seems to think so
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Visio … cture.html
Saying ' There isn't any magic technology or management trick that will make it possible to fly double-Apollo missions on a half-Apollo budget. '

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-13 04:41:55

Bell's recent doomsaying has already been addressed in two seperate threads

His "analysis" (to be charitable) is also based on a leaked and possibly "fishy" partial stack of powerpoint slides obtained from some NASA exec/engineer who is breaking agency rules, documents which paint the ESAS plan in the worst possible light. If the documents are even real.

But I digress, the big thing in the report that makes the ESAS plan seem pretty much unworkable is budgeting payload masses based on EDS/LSAM fuel boiloff assumptions over a 90 day loiter in Earth orbit.

I think that this figure is insane in its parinoia and assuming NASA can't launch the relativly simple CLV/CEV combo within the traditional and more reasonable ~30 day fuel boiloff window. If NASA can't do that, then they have no business flying people at all. With a more reasonable boiloff figure, the EDS/LSAM should carry just about enough fuel to meet the payload budget.

publiusr · 2006-04-13 11:32:04

Maybe if the canned the stick and went with two CaLVs. That may cost more over time--but if CaLV is built first--you get the hardest part done and you can build stick later.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-13 21:06:29

The sizes of CaLV you need would be too different, either you go with the TheStick + heavy CaLV, or two medium CaLVs. Developing any flavor of CaLV will be harder then building TheStick. TheStick/CEV is probobly going to be NASA's competance test for VSE; skipping TheStick means no ISS missions unless flown on top of an EELV, which is unlikly.

Going with two CaLV's isn't a terrible idea, but TheStick would probably be a little bit safer. But, overall, launch is going to be the least risky part of the whole trip, so it is of marginal importance.

publiusr · 2006-04-28 13:48:24

It just seems to me that we have more than enough ~20 ton+ boosters out there.

We have Delta IB 'heavy' , we had Titan IV. They have the new Long March, Ariane 5, Proton. Even India is shooting for this class rocket with the new GSLV concept (over a www.bautforum.com)

Enough with this class rocket already. There is a glut. CaLV needs to get built as soon as possible. A wider core now means that if it is stretched at some later point--you will at last have a good Mars ship.

If the pointy heads and the white coats like Wes Huntress and Louis Friedman would go away.

Rxke · 2006-04-29 13:22:36

It just seems to me that we have more than enough ~20 ton+ boosters out there.
We have Delta IB 'heavy' , we had Titan IV. They have the new Long March, Ariane 5, Proton..

But the man rated ones are scarce.

srmeaney · 2006-04-30 04:21:25

As a critical component of any move to mars is a big ship (200m long) that is nuclear propulsion capable, unmanned because of its 10G capacity although it would have onboard manable habitat for technicians during repair and maintenance cycles, with a cargo capacity of 50,000 ton limit in a single standard module size.

The problem then becomes the ability to orbit a container of 50 metres length, 16 meter radius with an upper mass of 50,000 ton.

Unfortunately a vehicle with a two hundred year lifespan will carry that 1 million-billion dollar price tag.

cIclops · 2006-04-30 05:44:49

As a critical component of any move to mars is a big ship (200m long) that is nuclear propulsion capable, unmanned because of its 10G capacity although it would have onboard manable habitat for technicians during repair and maintenance cycles, with a cargo capacity of 50,000 ton limit in a single standard module size.
The problem then becomes the ability to orbit a container of 50 metres length, 16 meter radius with an upper mass of 50,000 ton.
Unfortunately a vehicle with a two hundred year lifespan will carry that 1 million-billion dollar price tag.

Could you repost this in about 100 years please

srmeaney · 2006-04-30 07:56:25

Come Now, you know you want it. A nice big space ship with huge cargo capacity costing a fortune with is long life span. Its the Holy Grail of Space Colonization.

The current plans are insufficient and very much like the automotive industry level of thinking... if it runs on Petrol it is at the peak of technological advancement and therefor safe for human consumption, if it runs on water it is experimental, and possibly hazardous in the long run...

RobertDyck · 2006-04-30 22:39:39

The current plans are insufficient and very much like the automotive industry level of thinking... if it runs on Petrol it is at the peak of technological advancement and therefor safe for human consumption, if it runs on water it is experimental, and possibly hazardous in the long run...

Did you say something about running an automobile on water? Please don't tell me you're one of those. I've debunked car water systems before. The last one used the battery for electrolysis of water, then burned hydrogen. That would only last until the battery discharged. If you want to run a car on batteries an electric motor is more efficient. There are alternate means to run a car like batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, or biodiesel; but please don't claim you can fuel a car on water.

As for spacecraft, basic physics does apply. Costs is primarily to pay for manual labour so any means to reduce that labour will reduce cost. There are many ways to do that.

srmeaney · 2006-05-01 03:39:30

The current plans are insufficient and very much like the automotive industry level of thinking... if it runs on Petrol it is at the peak of technological advancement and therefor safe for human consumption, if it runs on water it is experimental, and possibly hazardous in the long run...
Did you say something about running an automobile on water? Please don't tell me you're one of those. I've debunked car water systems before. The last one used the battery for electrolysis of water, then burned hydrogen. That would only last until the battery discharged. If you want to run a car on batteries an electric motor is more efficient. There are alternate means to run a car like batteries, hydrogen fuel cells, or biodiesel; but please don't claim you can fuel a car on water.
As for spacecraft, basic physics does apply. Costs is primarily to pay for manual labour so any means to reduce that labour will reduce cost. There are many ways to do that.

Management would like to renegotiate your wage...

srmeaney · 2006-05-01 03:52:46

Once characterized as "Apollo on steroids" by NASA administrator Mike Griffin, the architecture surrounding the ESAS (Exploration Systems Architecture Study) has grown too heavy for its launch vehicles.

Looks bad...any time you want to go for that whole space Commonwealth thing we can have a thousand colonists on the Moon by 2020AD.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-03-19 02:22:23

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#2 2006-03-19 03:34:46

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#3 2006-03-19 05:05:39

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#4 2006-03-19 07:40:45

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#5 2006-03-19 14:34:23

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#6 2006-03-19 16:25:47

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#7 2006-03-23 15:31:25

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#8 2006-03-31 11:12:52

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#9 2006-04-06 00:01:31

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#10 2006-04-10 12:58:11

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#11 2006-04-10 13:27:15

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#12 2006-04-10 23:41:47

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#13 2006-04-11 08:17:18

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#14 2006-04-13 01:30:22

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#15 2006-04-13 04:41:55

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#16 2006-04-13 11:32:04

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#17 2006-04-13 21:06:29

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#18 2006-04-28 13:48:24

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#19 2006-04-29 13:22:36

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#20 2006-04-30 04:21:25

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#21 2006-04-30 05:44:49

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#22 2006-04-30 07:56:25

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#23 2006-04-30 22:39:39

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#24 2006-05-01 03:39:30

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#25 2006-05-01 03:52:46

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

Board footer