Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-01 05:39:42

"...has grown too heavy for its launch vehicles.

...Says Jeffery Bell, the perpetual NASA-hater, based on an internal NASA power point that was doctored by someone to make it look bad.

SpaceNut · 2006-05-01 08:43:32

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.

Many have felt that the contractors for years and possibly decades have been bilking Nasa. Now Griffin seems to be saying it too, he has seen the light

Griffin Warns That Industry Inefficiency Could Damage Space Program

.S. industry risks killing the goose that lays golden eggs by billing too much for space goods and services, threatening the NASA space programs that give it new business and the technology for international competition, says Administrator Michael Griffin.
In a strongly worded speech to an "Inside Aerospace" symposium organized by the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics and the Space Foundation, Griffin says: "If we want to see the space enterprise survive, it can't continue to cost what it does for what it produces.
"We, the country, don't get enough back for what we spend," Griffin says. "That means we don't get enough product for the amount of people's time invested in these activities. We have too many people doing every job we do."

cIclops · 2006-05-01 10:37:26

Many have felt that the contractors for years and possibly decades have been bilking Nasa. Now Griffin seems to be saying it too, he has seen the light

It's good to hear Griffin remind his suppliers that he is the one spending over $100 billion with them and he wants value. Griffin surely saw the light a long time ago :>

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-01 12:02:49

I see Griffin's statement aimed more at the practice of hiring more people then they need, and less about intentional price gouging, but his words were carefully chosen to express both.

EuroLauncher · 2006-07-19 15:53:08

VSE already $10 billion over budget
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/ … limbi.html
As to what it's all going to cost, our estimates are about--that it will cost for the first human lunar return, it will cost about 55 percent measured in constant dollars of what Apollo cost spread out over 13 years. Apollo was done in eight years. So, spreading it out over 13 years, it will cost about 55 percent of what Apollo cost, a specific number in today's dollars, about $104 billion for the first human lunar return along the lines of the architecture you saw today."
VSE Costs Climbing?

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-19 17:16:06

Heresay, anonymous third-hand rumor floating around, a paraphrase of which is posted on a notoriously anti-NASA amature news page.

RedStreak · 2006-07-19 17:19:56

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.

Maybe Monty Python's Holy Grail

Bigger is not always better; don't hold your breath for vehicles larger than the Ares V in the next 60 years, even assuming commercial spaceflight flies successfully.

"Space arks" are a largely out-of-date concept. Given the sheer time and logistics of traveling beyond say Mars I'd go with hibernation/cryogenics for these hypothetical 100 plus pilgram missions - something just slightly larger than a space shuttle could manage these "stasis pods" to borrow a phrase from Beast Wars Transformers.

RedStreak · 2006-07-19 17:33:54

Heresay, anonymous third-hand rumor floating around, a paraphrase of which is posted on a notoriously anti-NASA amature news page.

I agree. Its a good 3/4s because-I-hate-Bush-and-want-to-burn-any-possible-legacy-of-his-term.

Some points I've noted, like the elimination of methane propulsion for the time being, although I am glad research is still continuing regardless of the VSE.

To make my point I'm not going to criticize until something is physically built, otherwise its all sound and no fury like what seems to be blowing around in the wake of the hurricanes in Florida.

If the same noteable patterns that damned the shuttle crop up during construction: delays, massive cost overruns (like the ISS), multiple compromises that degenerate not just the program but the safety of crew and outcome of mission, THEN we should not only criticize but take action - petition Micheal Griffen directly and Congress to let them know the minds once pushing this endeavour are now displeased.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-07-29 16:58:51

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.

The Space Frontier Foundation announced Wednesday it has issued a whitepaper calling NASA's post-space shuttle plans the initial stages of complete failure.

www.space-travel.com/reports/Space_Frontier_Foundation_Slams_NASA_CEV_Plans_999.html

NASA Vision Plans Doomed, Space Advocacy Group Reports
Radical surgery is needed on NASA’s vision for space exploration of the Moon, Mars and beyond
http://www.space.com/news/060724_cev_needsrevision.html

RedStreak · 2006-07-29 18:29:59

This portion alone of the Space Advocacy Group makes me suspect of their opinion:

The assessment calls for immediate elimination of all work on the block 1 version of NASA’s Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and to delay the shuttle program-derived Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV)—a solid-rocket booster design now escalating in cost—while reconsidering the Atlas 5 and Delta 4 launchers.

Now wasn't it previously established not just in this forum but surely in papers elsewhere....INCLUDING the old Spaceplane concept that preceeded CEV, that both Atlas 5 and Delta 4 would take considerable time to man-rate?

Spotlighted in the study is a call to stop work on the CEV Block 1 which is designed for missions to the International Space Station. That function can be handed over to private space firms. NASA should focus on the CEV Block 2 that is specifically targeted for Moon and beyond exploration goals.

Ok this part makes some sense. I agree we need to keep the main focus of the CEV on exploration otherwise it'll be a vehicle mocking its own name which I think is the main fear of these people. To that end more emphacis ought to be on the CaLV as opposed to the CEV/CLV so we can at least start putting equiptment out there. There is a concept of putting the horse before the wagon, eh? And the CLV would barely be a pony...

Furthermore, the study counsels that the U.S. government should immediately transfer two-to-three billion dollars from the CEV and CLV efforts to pay for an additional round of what the group sees as a now under-funded Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program

No doubt this is true, but every company is often trying to wring the government dry of money when it can. I seem to recall Lockheed being given close to a billion for that scrapped X-33 on the same token and what good did that achieve? Give them a few million of "seed money" I'd wager and if no fruit (in this case at least a working prototype) is borne then clear the dead wood.

Commercial spaceflight is still a fledgling as I stated before; not a dead-end but don't expect it to soar like the Eagle (or the Apollo 11 lander if you will ) just yet. Someone like Bigelow is the answer for them, and servicing the ISS within this decade I say. The Moon and Mars are a little hefty to handle...but only for the moment.

There's my educated opinion for you all.

RedStreak · 2006-07-29 18:42:54

The Space Frontier Foundation announced Wednesday it has issued a whitepaper calling NASA's post-space shuttle plans the initial stages of complete failure.
www.space-travel.com/reports/Space_Frontier_Foundation_Slams_NASA_CEV_Plans_999.html

Again I see questionable portions...

"America is the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world because we are better at business, not because we are better at bureaucracy," said Bob Werb, the foundation's chairman.

Bureaucracy is everywhere. Ever heard of middle management Bob?

Using the power of the private sector is our nation's best and only chance to have an affordable and sustainable human exploration program

I already explained my opinion of this in my previous post. The private space sector is barely out of the zygote stage for crying out loud...

"Yet the agency is spending less than 1 percent of its budget on innovative commercial approaches. Just like the space station, we are watching another NASA train wreck in progress, and just like station, they are trying to hide the facts," Tumlinson added.

The FBI and CIA also withhold facts and you're not likely to get them from them either...

Given a space station to fund, a shuttle to sustain while being (somewhat) gracefully retired, a new set of rockets to develop (Ares), AND continuing educational, unmanned probe, and ground equiptment operations where would you SUGGEST this money come from?

I'm neither sympathetic or critical of NASA - it is just one agency trying to do so much at once. I can understand why O'Keffe retired after his short term - he knew alot of pressure would be quickly put on him. Griffen is about the only one with my sympathy trying to maintain a juggling act while the impatient members of the public audience boo and try flinging tomatoes.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-30 13:42:39

"the private sector is our nation's best and only chance to have an affordable and sustainable human exploration program. NASA was told to do just that"

I dunno, I think NASA can "afford and sustain" quite a bit with a $16.7Bn budget and no more Shuttle to prop up.

And I agree with Redsteak (and probably M. Griffin too), that no AltSpace commercial outfit - none - have shown credible competance to provide even basic ISS cargo services with their own technology. Even SpaceX is likely years from putting multi-tonne payloads on an ISS transfer orbit, and the other contenders like Kistler and T/Space won't ever fly at all barring a major government investment. As Griffin said, NASA simply can't be forking over nine-digit sums of money to AltSpace companies with no strings attached and low certainty of sucess.

The only thing the SFF says in this article is that they believe NASA is doomed unless they prostrate themselves to the AltSpace community, who save for the dinky Falcon-I have not shown that they are up to the task.

Most of the "fact hiding" has been from Congress when M. Griffin has sucessfully killed SSME and scaled back reliance on uneeded/expensive/incompetant NASA centers in various states.

RedStreak · 2006-07-30 19:07:49

The only thing the SFF says in this article is that they believe NASA is doomed unless they prostrate themselves to the AltSpace community, who save for the dinky Falcon-I have not shown that they are up to the task.
Most of the "fact hiding" has been from Congress when M. Griffin has sucessfully killed SSME and scaled back reliance on uneeded/expensive/incompetant NASA centers in various states.

As much as I like to give commercial space projects slack and the benefit of the doubt you have a point; I don't like it when a company promotes and brings forth no product. Its also sad the Falcon-1 was brought down by a stupid loose nut of all things which doesn't give me confidence....

Mister Griffen is doing as good a job as one can expect. He's more active than O'Keffe in my opinion w/o being as overbearing and overpromising than Goldwin.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-30 20:13:58

Falcon-I wasn't lost because of a loose bolt, which would be simple human error... that bolt was loose due to corrosion because the nut was a different kind of metal than the thing it was screwed into, forming an electrolytic cell and dissolving the metal in the presence of the humid/salty pacific air. It was a design flaw, one of those things that inexperienced engineers would never think about. Kind of reduces my confidance in Elon & Co a little bit.

redhorizons · 2006-07-31 14:19:22

Hey GCN, that nut was a "Top of line" aluminium nut. Spare no expense, they did. :oops:

publiusr · 2006-08-11 15:41:01

And I agree with Redsteak (and probably M. Griffin too), that no AltSpace commercial outfit - none - have shown credible competance to provide even basic ISS cargo services with their own technology. As Griffin said, NASA simply can't be forking over nine-digit sums of money to AltSpace companies with no strings attached and low certainty of success.
The only thing the SFF says in this article is that they believe NASA is doomed unless they prostrate themselves to the AltSpace community, who save for the dinky Falcon-I have not shown that they are up to the task.
Most of the "fact hiding" has been from Congress when M. Griffin has sucessfully killed SSME and scaled back reliance on uneeded/expensive/incompetant NASA centers in various states.

Very well put. I cannot stand that fraud Tumlinson.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-08-30 11:13:40

"...has grown too heavy for its launch vehicles.
...Says Jeffery Bell, the perpetual NASA-hater, based on an internal NASA power point that was doctored by someone to make it look bad.

Jeff Bell is a NASA-Basher

RedStreak · 2006-09-02 01:47:27

There seem to be alot of NASA haters lately. Keep a close watch for those that derail NASA but offer no real counter solution. They kinda behave like media parasites trying to suck out as much bad news as possible to garner attention. The media woudln't care if there's a point or not so long as there's a story.

EuroLauncher · 2006-09-08 14:48:30

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.

A drifting, blurring, and dimming Vision
by Eric R. Hedman
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/690/1
The Space Frontier Foundation published a white paper last month titled “Unaffordable and Unsustainable? Signs of Failure in NASA’s Earth-to-orbit Transportation Strategy”. To say it is critical of NASA’s VSE is an understatement. When I first heard about the paper, I though it was just another case of an organization putting forth a self-serving article. Then I read the paper and realized that they do have a point. While I don’t fully agree with what the Foundation recommends should be done, I do think that they bring up several valid points about the direction NASA is going. It has been reinforced by the GAO report that is also raising serious questions.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-08 17:01:05

More "blah blah blah:"

The paper correctly points out that very little of the standard shuttle components are going to be used. It is requiring new production tooling for items such as the external tank to new engines for the Earth Departure Stage. The mobile launch platforms and the launch pads will require expensive and time-consuming modifications. Each launch of an Ares 5 will be extremely expensive.

Very few of the Shuttle standard components are going to be used for one simple reason, that the most expensive components - the engines, in this case SSME - were themselves unaffordable. There will be a cost associated with designs that use other engines instead, but it will be a one time cost, as opposed to an ongoing burden. RS-68 is a proven, in production engine and neither J-2X nor the five-segment SRB are clean-sheet. The larger Ares-V diameter tankage can be built on old Apollo rigging at Michoud perhaps. And why will each Ares-V be so expensive? The author doesn't say...

The Crew Launch Vehicle, or Ares 1, was supposed to be made up of standard shuttle components

Really? Frankly, I think Griffin just said this to placeate Congress, which worked pretty well. Money is flowing, SSME is gone, probably a reduction in the Shuttle Army too.

The key changes that are adding to the cost are extending it to five segments, adding a roll control capability, and developing all new avionics. The second stage will require the development of a new engine.

...all of which will be shared with Ares-V later. Thus in case money is cut under a later administration, the blow to the program will not be so catastrophic perhaps.

The GAO report says the $3-billion cost just to modify the SRBs is greater than the cost required to man-rate the EELVs

That may be the case, but none of the EELVs have the lift capacity, safety, or responsiveness as Ares-I will, at least not without radical modification or excessive per-flight cost. Ares-I is a good deal for NASA.

He said that the Ares 5 is being designed with the requirements of a Mars mission in mind. He also said that he didn’t foresee sending humans to Mars for at least twenty years... the first journey to Mars would take place using twenty-year-old (if not older) technology. Isn’t old technology one of the reasons there are problems maintaining the shuttle fleet?

Old technology? No, Shuttle's technology isn't inherintly bad, its just a bad combination of things in a vehicle that is too old. If we had a brand new Shuttle each time, there would be nothing wrong with its age. And we are using much the same technology as we did in Apollo today 40 years hence, why not the next 40 years? The dirty secret is that rocket technology has plateued pretty much due to the limitations of practical fuels and materials. Similar rockets of similar size carry similar payloads then as now.

Are we so arrogant that we think we know now what will be the preferred technology for possibly the next half century?

Sure, why not? If its possible to know about any technology, its rockets.

I remember figures from several years ago that an estimate for developing the Shuttle C

Shuttle-C has less than 66% of the payload of Ares-V, and will cost about the same in engines for each flight. It was and is a bad deal.

Government agencies are not the most efficient organizations for doing most things. My father worked for...

*Bwoop bwoop* Inane, irrelivent, second-hand personal story alert! This guy is really channeling Robert Dyck, pushing on the Shuttle-C even.

they were spending more and more time and money on programs that had little to do with the primary mission of the agency

Guess what folks, the primary mission of the agency has kinda changed recently.

As one NASA employee told me, “competence is not a high priority around here.” If competence is not the highest priority within NASA, the architecture of the VSE is too big of a reach for right now.

*Bwoop bwoop* again... plus how will NASA get competance if not to try?

Those who have serious questions...

Are mostly people without any authority, and who are not appointed to a spaceflight position by any elected offical. Many of them are active NASA-haters too, and frankly the critics would pull the plan in so many different directions that it would collapse.

the best possible path based upon what is known now without locking out future technology

Well hey, unless somebody is going to come up with a magic rocket fuel or psuedo-weightless composites real soon, then we already know what the technology of choice will be, expendable rockets. Maybe with reuseable boosters. RS-68, J-2, and SRB are good engines. If by "locking out technology" you mean "AltSpace," then they can bid to take over NASA's Lunar cargo and maybe crew duty while the agency focuses on Mars, which is where the agency is going in relation to AltSpace anyway most likely.

They are supposed to be working for us

Yep, all of us. Not whiney rocket enthusiasts who can't make an opinion in an opinion piece who just diss NASA. We have this cool thing called an "election" too you know.

NASA also needs to make it clear to the public what they expect to accomplish with the COTS program... why would any experienced venture capital funding source with management in their right minds back these companies?

Because all but a tiny handfull of AltSpace outfits happen to be even in the general proximity of in their right minds.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2006-10-23 10:37:35

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.

Bush Sets Defense As Space Priority
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 01484.html
U.S. Says Shift Is Not A Step Toward Arms; Experts Say It Could Be

SpaceNut · 2006-10-23 11:00:57

News of release of the new National space policy document could be seen in another light.

US turns space into its colony

The most crucial feature of this policy is that it "rejects future arms-control agreements that might limit US flexibility in space and asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone 'hostile to US interests'."
It adds: "The United States will preserve its rights, capabilities and freedom of action in space ... and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests."

President George W. Bush has signed an order asserting the United States' right to deny adversaries access to space for hostile purposes.

Commodore · 2006-10-24 08:10:52

Arming space is inevitable. We better hope we do it before someone else does.

publiusr · 2006-10-27 13:13:51

I agree. But we need a space Rickover/Billy Mitchell who will do battle with Navy folks who think we are still in Jutland and fighter jocks who think we are still in MiG Alley.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-11-03 18:40:10

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.

A drifting, blurring, and dimming Vision
by Eric R. Hedman
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/690/1
The Space Frontier Foundation published a white paper last month titled “Unaffordable and Unsustainable? Signs of Failure in NASA’s Earth-to-orbit Transportation Strategy”. To say it is critical of NASA’s VSE is an understatement. When I first heard about the paper, I though it was just another case of an organization putting forth a self-serving article. Then I read the paper and realized that they do have a point. While I don’t fully agree with what the Foundation recommends should be done, I do think that they bring up several valid points about the direction NASA is going. It has been reinforced by the GAO report that is also raising serious questions.

It all depends now on what kind of President is in the Whitehouse come 2008

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2006-05-01 05:39:42

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#27 2006-05-01 08:43:32

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#28 2006-05-01 10:37:26

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#29 2006-05-01 12:02:49

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#30 2006-07-19 15:53:08

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#31 2006-07-19 17:16:06

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#32 2006-07-19 17:19:56

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#33 2006-07-19 17:33:54

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#34 2006-07-29 16:58:51

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#35 2006-07-29 18:29:59

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#36 2006-07-29 18:42:54

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#37 2006-07-30 13:42:39

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#38 2006-07-30 19:07:49

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#39 2006-07-30 20:13:58

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#40 2006-07-31 14:19:22

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#41 2006-08-11 15:41:01

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#42 2006-08-30 11:13:40

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#43 2006-09-02 01:47:27

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#44 2006-09-08 14:48:30

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#45 2006-09-08 17:01:05

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#46 2006-10-23 10:37:35

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#47 2006-10-23 11:00:57

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#48 2006-10-24 08:10:52

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#49 2006-10-27 13:13:51

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

#50 2006-11-03 18:40:10

Re: Is the 'VSE' getting dimmer ?

Board footer