New Mars Forums

Ya man, you’re absolutely correct. Deals with shady countries need to stop!

Why would anyone want to enter into a partnership with a country that has had  glaringly suspicious presidential elections, has a standing policy of continually spying on it’s own citizens, where 1 in 6 of  it’s citizens live in poverty despite immense domestic wealth, conducts bloody wars of occupation on countries knowingly using false pretenses – and knowingly at the expense of many tens of thousands of innocent civilian lives, regularly breaks trade agreements with other countries when they are no longer convenient, intentionally contravenes the Geneva convention on torture (as so ruled by its own supreme court), and knowingly continues to destroy the global ecosystem in order to continue to make it’s elite ruling class even more wealthy than it already is.

Globally, it is feared,  loathed, or at least mistrusted by at least half of the world’s population.

I expect that a nation of this sort could certainly not be trusted in any joint space endeavor.

Why should anyone trust the U.S.A. anymore?

nasaspaceflight.com is strongly implying that they have inside information that the Stick is going to be killed off very soon.  It has become too problematic.

Good points John.

Although comparing a University degree of today is not like comparing a University degree of several hundred years ago. What we would call engineers, technologists, and technicians now would have been called for the most part “tradesmen” in that time, and were schooled as apprentices.

The larger point that you make however is good concerning the percentage of the population aspiring to be professionally skilled and improving their lot in life. I agree with your observation: obviously it was not a majority of the population then or now. However, the question really is whether enough citizens of a nation are ready, willing, and able to support a great national cause in order to get the job done – not necessarily the majority. The great exploring nations of those days past had a sufficient volume of motivated skilled workers, fiscal depth, and national will to accomplish what they did. Does the United States have those ingredients now in order to continue leading in the exploration of the final frontier?

The postulation that I am putting to those who are unhappy with what they view as the sorry state, direction, and pace of the U.S. space program is that it is that way because the majority of the nation is satisfied with how it is and is projected to be.

I am asking those dissatisfied: “Why do you think that is?” “Why is it not a burning national priority to get people back to the moon in 8 years and on Mars in 15 years?”

“Why is the national will to do better than that not there?”

I ask if those who are dissatisfied feel as if is because the United States has peaked as a great nation and society – and has lost the interest to lead in the manner that it once did.
Does America want to be a nation of lawyers and celebrities – instead of engineers, scientists, and explorers?

That is the root question – not if NASA management is unimaginative or incompetent. NASA is only a tool and product of the nation it serves.

Oh, and by the way, of course China will not surpass the U.S.A. anytime soon, but at an annual GNP growth rate of 6% to 10%, how long will it take?

And one other thing: I am personally happy just to see the plans and efforts being put into place for the U.S. space program. It's the best thing to come along since the early 70's.

Trust me - decomissioning will still cost $$$, despite the fact that it would seem to be a simple thing.

It's not as simple as draining the fuel tank and turning off the lights.

Fuel: Hydrazine, Nitrogen Teteroxide. Check out the occupational health and safety requirements for dealing with any component contaminated with such material. Any trace of this material must be removed from a decomissioned vehicle

Additionally, among many others requiring removal/safeing there are:
APUs, hydraulic systems, pressurised oxygen & nitrogen systems, cooling system, fuel cells, emergency pyros, computers, and yes - the batteries as well.

As well, they won't be going back to the garage. Once done with they will be going straight to a museum. Bays in the OPF need to be converted for servicing the CEV.

Yup, that's a very good point. Good call. Look to have extra supplies put on the ISS ASAP in order to support a stranded shuttle crew for 30-60 days to alleviate this problem. The addition of node 2 will really help in this matter (extra space). As for the rescue shuttle, it won't actually be sitting on the other pad waiting for the signal to go, but rather it will be sitting in the VAB. Wheeling it out to the one shuttle pad takes 5-6 hours. I would expect pad refurbishment in an emergency would take 2-5 days.  In the golden days of the Shuttle  program they launched 2 flights 15 DAYS apart from the same pad (yup - you read correct - 15 days).  So, one pad is still enough.

Very few physiccal changes are required to stack and launch a Magnum booster out of LC-39. At least one assembly bay of the VAB will have to be re-configured, and at least one launch platform will have to be partially rebuilt, as the flame contrail from the first stage core will be directly below where the stuttle ET is now located.
As for LC-39 itself, the concrete hardstand can remain essentially the same. Umbilical arms will have to be added to the LUT to service a second stage of the vehicle. On the flip side, the payload changeout room and associated structures can be removed at  pad.

None of this stuff is anything resembling a showstopper.

Aw man - you beat me to it!

Looks like we will get the Magnum booster after all. You can say one thing about Griffin: he does things big, and by God decisively.

120MT lift. Big big booster.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima … ...038.jpg

Apparently the Shuttle army will live on!

Gentlemen, gentlemen

If they really want it to, "The Stick" can be made to work.

Yes, if you put a person in the place of parachutes on a single STS SRB as it is now, that person would be undoubtedly crushed in flight like a bug. No question about it. And yes, it currently has one axis gimbal capability. And yes, it currently has a limited self guidance capability. That’s why no one in their right mind would ever do such a thing. It’s the world’s largest skyrocket when taken on its own as it is currently configured – not a human LV.

That said….

There is nothing that would stop it from becoming one in very short order. The issues:

-Safety. This has three aspects. Firstly, overall SRM reliability. It is in a nutshell, excellent - possibly the best in the history of rocketry. It is already man rated, although modifications will require re-certification. The SRM is also one of the most thoroughly understood LV motors in the history of rocketry – bar none. Given enough flights, one will inevitably fail however, so…. Secondly, abort safety. I read that there is a lot of concern here about being unable to shut off a malfunctioning solid motor. This is incorrect. Every solid motor has a linear charge placed along the length of the casing on the outside. If that charge is blown, it tears open the length of the casing and the thrust out of the nozzle is cutoff. Happens almost instantaneously once activated. Since the CRV is going to have a launch escape system, the CRV can be pulled away from the errant booster, and the linear charge blown milliseconds later – basically cutting the thrust off of the malfunctioning SRB. Thirdly, there is no additional safety in having a liquid-fueled booster unless it is a multi-engine liquid booster with engine-out-to orbit capability. In that capacity, such an LV  can shut a sick engine down in flight and continue on to orbit.  Very few LV’s have ever had that luxury – Saturn, STS, & Proton I believe (and none of even these has this capability during the entire boost phase). Every other malfunctioning LV is going into the Atlantic no matter if it is liquid fueled or solid fueled – and a launch escape system for the CRV is going to be the only thing to save the crew’s lives in any such scenario.  Same with a sudden catastrophic LV failure: if it’s gonna blow up, it’s gonna blow up – liquid or solid fueled. Again, only a good launch escape systems is gonna save the crew.

- Thrust vectoring. There are several ways to deal with this, none of which involve the current SRB nozzle gimbal system. One crude method is to spray liquid fuel at right angles into the thrust stream at the nozzle. Titan 3 used this technique successfully for 30 years. A more likely scenario however is simply to develop a 2-axis gimbling nozzle for the motor. This may end up being the most expensive upgrade in developing such a vehicle, but it can be done. Adding fins would also be a help.

- Acceleration. Be aware that solid motor burn rate can be controlled these days by constructing the solid fuel in different shapes and mixtures. That, coupled with the fact that the SRB will be lofting at least 70,000 pounds of second stage and spacecraft should allow for a wild, yet acceptable ride. Could be looking at 3-6 G’s for crewmembers. No worse than Saturn.

A few other items – Griffin wants CEV flying in 2010-2011. So they need a booster that can be developed and man-rated in very short order using existing technology and facilities,  and at as low a cost as possible. The Stick looks very good in that regard.

In my opinion, the bigger developmental issue for such a vehicle would be the man rating for the second stage. It would be this stage that would be doing the bulk of the flying – likely burning for up to 8 or 10 minutes, depending on the launch profile.

So how do I feel? Well, I take a somewhat different approach than folks here I guess. I see the American civil space program as just that – a government program. As a government organization, it operates on different paradigms than other types of projects or organizational structures. We all sometimes tend to forget that NASA is just another arm of the US federal government. It is both hostage and benefactor to that reality. Issues such as spending funds in different parts of the country (spreading the money around), political attitudes of the day, public support, etc. are all necessary operating considerations. It is also has a complex relationship with the military-industrial complex, and all of the issues related to that. That will never change as long as NASA remains an arm of the federal government. So, I tend not to look at what I would personally want to see happen – but rather tend to try to envision what is likely to happen when taking into consideration all of the constraints and opportunities that NASA operates within. What I want really doesn’t matter. What is likely to happen does matter. So that said, I would expect the following to play out, based on the situation right now (tomorrow the situation may change and none of this may be valid).

1) The VSE is going to take hold and become NASA’s primary reason for existence. I would have not been so sure up until recently, but the huge organizational shake-up and reformation required to make NASA a VSE-centric organization has begun. This is the most significant thing to happen to NASA in over 30 years. Massive layoffs, transfers, and hiring, shutdowns, and startups have begun at NASA centers – and are likely to continue through to completion. Today for example, pink slips and transfers for many of NASA’s top brass were issued.  Toes are not only  being stepped on, but are being amputated if they do not support the VSE. None of this could have happened unless there was the blessing of the executive and legislature to do so. It is indicative of real commitment to proceed with the VSE at high levels. This is very significant and cannot be underestimated. Power is shifting.

2) Indications are that the Apollo-type project model will be used for VSE (obviously with many modifications because of the time gap). Industry will construct much of the machines and materials, but NASA will be firmly in program design and control.

3) Existing NASA centers that can contribute to the VSE will get lots of work. Ones that can’t will suffer.

4) Budgets will not be unlimited. Some NASA projects and programs that do not support the VSE will be delayed or cancelled.

5) The overriding prerogative in the near term will be to get the shuttle flying and finish the station. This is mostly just to get the damn stuff out of the way and off the plate. It is nothing more than an obstacle to getting on with the VSE. If they could, they would walk away from it right now – but  those ISS treaty obligations get in the way. Look for NASA to do anything it can to reduce those treaty obligations in order to get on with VSE.

6) If another shuttle is lost, the program will be shut down. ISS will be reconfigured in whatever form possible to continue on. The Russians don’t want to walk away from it, and will keep it going in that unlikely contingency.

6) The primary focus outside of fulfilling ISS commitments (in the next 5 years) will be to build a new manned spacecraft to replace the shuttle ASAP. Getting the Constellation project’s CEV flying by no later than 2011 will become paramount as 2010 approaches.

7) NASA will go with a heavy lift SDV launcher for big unmanned cargo, for reasons I described earlier in this post (and won’t get into again). Also there is a better than 50/50 chance that CEV will fly out of LC-39 on a STS SRB-derived LV, although that is less certain than the SDV heavy launcher happening.

8) Assuming that the VSE survives into the next presidential term or two, I imagine an actual return to the Moon in a period between 2014-2017. What happens in terms of permanency regarding lunar habitation is very fuzzy right now. A lot up in the air about that. Could be as little as a dozen expeditions lasting 2-4 weeks each, or a much as permanent bases.

9) I would be surprised to see a Mars expedition mounted before 2025. More likely 2030-2035. This date could be accelerated if the political desire is there to make it happen (read spending megabucks), or it could be put off indefinitely if the political winds blow ill. An expedition to a near-earth asteroid or Lagrangian stations may happen before the Mars attempt as a rehearsal.

10) IF a human Mars program is reasonably successful, then the floodgates will open. A barrier will have been crossed and human exploration of the solar system will commence. I would expect expeditions to the larger main belt asteroids, and eventually Callisto in a post 2050 time frame.

So, that is my best guess at what will play out at this time. Some folks may not agree with all I have laid out – and I don’t blame you. Hell, I don’t even personally agree with all of what I think is likely to transpire – but that is the way I think it will play out IF things continue on their current track unabated. And that is a BIG “IF”.  A lot of unpredictable will occur in the next 30 years, and will likely affect this prediction. But hey, that’s how I see it playing out at this time.

Its Gonna happen. You can bank on it. Look for an announcement in July. SDV heavy lift is gonna be reality. If they were gonna go the heavy lift route for supporting VSE (and Griffin has always believed in that route) and do it fast, did anyone think anything else was really gonna be selected??  I know some folks like tSpace, or Falcon, or doing the whole thing by EELV, but one has to be realistic in a realpolitik kind of way here. A few points:

1) LC-39, the LCC, the VAB, the SRB processing facility, the SPF, and the OPF comprise NASA’s entire launch infrastructure. Pretty much every other launch facility is owned or run by the DOD or the private sector. NASA isn’t gonna scrap the facilities and staff of the largest launch facility in the world – and the only one it happens to own.

2) The above mentioned facilities are the only ones in the world that can currently process heavy launch vehicles and very heavy payloads. It is the only facility in the west that can currently process manned spacecraft. When it comes to processing several very large LV’s at once, the VAB is a priceless national treasure. Is anyone in the USA gonna scrap all of that infrastructure and build something else to replace it? No chance.

3) A lot of you guys love to dis the shuttle, but as a launch vehicle it is one of the most reliable LV’s ever built. One failure in over 100 launches. I’ll bet you that Atlas 5 or Delta 4  never does that well.  That said, the Orbiter portion of the STS is aging, is still very complex, very expensive to operate, has a propulsion system pushed to the max, and has to worry about TPS protection during launch. All very seriously problematic issues that have never really been solved to complete satisfaction.  However, the launch vehicle fundamentals of the STS system as a whole are very well understood – in fact better understood that any other launch vehicle ever developed. Take the Orbiter out of the equation and one will have the fastest developed, cheapest, and most capable heavy launch system one could get in 5 years. Hands down.

4) Production facilities for most SDV components exist NOW.

5) All competing heavy lift proposals are totally unproven in the sense that they have never been built or flown. No facilities for such proposals exist. Where would they be built, who would pay? What would development times for such vehicles be? Hell, Delta 4 sat on the pad for 8 months before it first flew.

Basically an STS derived unmanned heavy lift launch vehicle would be the fastest developed, cheapest overall, and initially likely the most reliable. Other HLV proposals might be better in the long run, but Griffin needs to keep the ball rolling on the VSE. Momentum is important here. One can debate whether the decision to go with a 100 ton lift LV vs. a 25 ton LV methodology for VSE is wise. However once the decision to go with the heavy lift capability has been made, it is difficult to argue with an STS-derived heavy lift vehicle as the best and most efficient “quick and dirty solution”.

Lastly, I might be so bold to comment on the audacity of the style of some of you folks criticizing Griffin and NASA. Don’t misunderstand me, everyone has the right to free speech and to voice an honest opinion. However, I was reading one post calling Griffin “an idiot”.  Unfreekin believable! This guy has 7 university degrees and is one of the most respected individuals in the spaceflight business for heaven’s sake! Are you guys that knowledgeable or smart?? Being a Trekkie, having a degree in physics or computer science, or being a member of the Mars Society STILL doesn’t qualify you to call these folks idiots. Do some of you guys have any idea how complex and difficult spaceflight is? What many, many folks at NASA do every day would be considered amazing by the standards of 99% of the population. It is exactly NOT like is portrayed in the movies or TV.

Just because you don’t agree with decisions made by others does not make them idiots.  To have any credibility at all yourselves, you had better be able to say that you have already walked a mile in their shoes before you criticize to such an extreme degree.

Whoa there Cindy

I think you may have missed my point. The point of my thread is not the Voyager, Hubble, or any other particular programs’ threats or cuts.  I simply used them as examples because people here are so familiar with those particular situations. I just have easily could have used potential upcoming mission extensions on MER, Cassini, or Chandra as case history examples. I am not trying to reinvent the wheel here. What I am really talking about here is overriding policy objectives for the American space program, not if Missions “X, Y, or Z” live or die – they are but chess pieces on a much, much larger board. In fact, although some people have alluded to the hard choices that have to be made in supporting one specific policy or another as a response to a more specific thread, I do not see this matter anywhere in this particular forum being addressed in and of itself - despite the fact that it will be the overriding factor in unmanned solar system exploration for the next 20-30 years.

What I am trying (and apparently failing) to speak to is about policy choices. Big picture stuff. I have been reading stuff here from a lot of folks supporting multiple initiatives that may in fact become in conflict or competition with one another under the new national civil space policy. It seems like some folks want to have it all (and hey – I don’t blame you, I really would like it all as well). They want people on Mars, on the Moon, asteroids, etc. Then they want other stuff as well – such as extensions on very successful ongoing programs that have run their pre-specified course, or new unmanned planetary missions.

You yourself have written these two things in two separate threads:

“Manned mission by 2020, right NASA? RIGHT, NASA??”

And then you put up a “save Voyager” poll.

What I am saying to you and everyone else is that it is unlikely that everyone is going to get everything all the time. There are times when missions such as the two that you have stated above - that you both want to see happen - will be in direct competition with each other – and one will loose. The money isn’t likely to be there for everything. Sometimes, something will have to give. That’s what I am talking about.

So, are folks prepared to support the policy choices that achieve whatever objectives they support, whether that is the VSE, non-VSE, unmanned, manned, or whatever mix of that is appropriate. Are they prepared to see some of the things that they want to happen not happen, for the greater sake of the overriding policy objective that they support?

That is what I am asking. I am challenging people to get off their chairs and speak to what they stand for in terms of the big picture, within the context of realism. To be prepared to bite the bullet on some tough individual issues if it is in support of their greater vision. Not whether Voyager, or whatever else, lives to see another day. It is big picture policy stuff that determines what individual missions get selected for flight, and which of those get mission extensions once flying.

Can you see the difference?

PS – Hubble and Voyager will likely get their extensions for political reasons, at the expense of something else. So don’t sweat it too much over these.

I have been reading quite a few posts here lamenting the possible demise of such things as Voyager and Hubble. I see there is even a "save Voyager" poll. I am the first to be saddened by the possible loss of such things as Hubble, Voyager - and many before them such as CRAF and the US Halley probe. I can remember reading about Voyager before it was launched and wondered at what secrets it would find in their travels. As much as many of us have an emotional attachment to such incredible missions, we must also realize that everything is done for a reason. It is only a matter if one agrees with the reasoning employed.

Most people are aware that the American space program is currently at a crossroads, attempting to define and proceed with what it should be and do in the 21st century. The largest part of this transformation has resulted from the President assigning NASA a long-term vision. This proposed change is the most sweeping and significant to NASA in at least 35 years. It will be little short of a re-invention. In response to these marching orders, NASA has begun to realign what and how it operates. Part of that reorganization is to strengthen and enlarge the things that it does that compliment the new vision, and to stop or scale down what does not compliment that vision. The first of those realigning steps are currently being taken. Some people are happy to see things getting started, while others are profoundly upset. It begs the question: what should be the raison d'etre for NASA? Is the new plan the correct one? If not, what should the primary focus of the American space program be? Should it even have a primary focus?

What the President has assigned to NASA is commonly called the “Vision For Space Exploration”, or VSE. The basic and overriding objective of the VSE is to firstly lay the groundwork for, and then proceed with, the human exploration of the Solar System. It begins with the completion of the Space Station, moves to returning to the Moon, then to  Mars, and then beyond Mars. Although not specifically officially stated, “beyond Mars” is thought to include larger asteroids, Jupiter (likely Callisto), Lagrangian stations, etc. At the core, the VSE is about humans exploring and pioneering, and even one day possibly colonizing. It’s about getting humans off of the third stone from the sun and out exploring the cosmos. Heady stuff indeed.  The thing is that this sort of stuff can be - but is not necessarily - science or scientifically driven. It is about humans expanding their envelope of existence (real, not virtual). It’s about seeing what’s over the next hill by climbing that hill in person (but it is not necessarily as important to know what that hill is made of (at least not immediately)).  It’s Lewis&Clark, Leif Erikson, Francis Drake, and Robert Scott sort of stuff. It is not James Van Allen, Marie Curie, or Enrico Fermi sort of stuff.

So what does this mean for the NASA paradigm that has been around up to this point? Basically many other NASA activities that do not compliment the VSE might end up taking a backseat, be ended, or not happen at all. Everyone must be realistic here: NASA is not going to get an unlimited budget to do everything, so sometimes things not directly VSE related are going to get sacrificed in order to help the VSE along. It is an inevitability. Already, we are seeing the potential killing off of some high-visibility NASA science & aeronautics programs that do not have much application to the VSE.  More will come in the future.

This question has a direct bearing on unmanned planetary exploration especially. Up to now, much of the mission selection for the US unmanned planetary exploration program has been driven primarily by scientific questions relating  to the solar system. The overall mission lineups were derived from the SSEC – essentially a science body. In the future, the science produced by planetary probes will need to have some sort of bearing on the VSE, as opposed to broader scientific desires. How do readers feel about that?

An excellent (but not the only) example of this question is the current issue regarding the  Voyager spacecraft. The Voyagers have lived way, way beyond their primary and extended missions. They are now only returning data primarily concerned with the interaction of the solar wind with intergalactic space, and with the physical conditions and properties of space at the edge of our solar system.  This is scientifically important from the perspective of people who study these matters, other people who support such research, and of course the folks who still operate the Voyagers. How much of this data will make a reasonably significant contribution to the VSE though? Probably not much. An argument for keeping Voyager going might be made that Voyager operations cost “only” $10 million/year – not much in the world of spaceflight. However, seeing that the Voyagers might have 15 more years of life in them, it really means that running the Voyagers to the end of  their operational life will cost $150 million. $150 million could actually make a difference to the VSE.

This is where a conflict lies with many supporters of the space program. Most would really like to see something like the VSE happen, and in a timescale that falls within their lifetime. Many dream of watching that future television broadcast of those first human footsteps on Mars, or high definition television broadcasts from the surface of the moon. Are those same supporters prepared to see a sometimes heavy price paid to achieve that however? Are supporters of the goals of the VSE really prepared for the drastic change in the way NASA will need to operate in order to achieve it? I’m not sure that some folks really grasp the ultimate enormity of the scope of the VSE, and the fundamental change in NASA that it will incur. Although not a race like it was in the 60’s, it will be much like Mercury/Gemini/Apollo in the sense of single minded purpose and objective – except it will last 20-30 years.  Realistically there is not ever going to enough money to do the VSE, and all the things that the geophysics, solar physics, particle physics, earth sciences, planetary sciences & astronomy communities want to do. So what gives?

Basically, there are three options:

1) Proceed with the current NASA plan as assigned by the President. This will give the VSE priority. Other activities will still happen at NASA, but they will rarely if ever override VSE priorities if NASA is forced to choose between the two. Other programs may suffer as a result. This will get the VSE objectives accomplished as soon as possible (10-25 years), but quite potentially at the expense of other unassociated NASA  activities.

2) Blend the VSE into NASA as a priority parallel with other unassociated programs. The VSE will then have to compete with other programs on a level playing field. VSE will not get all the resources when it desires, but other programs will not suffer at the expense of the VSE. It will however quite possibly take the VSE 20-40 or more years to achieve its objectives. There is also the real risk that any program that takes that long to accomplish will not survive long enough to fulfill its objectives. VSE might ultimately collapse under such a stretchout. Other non-VSE-related will however get the same treatment as in the
past decade or more.

3) Forget the VSE. Shut it down. Allow human spaceflight to continue  with earth orbital research involving 3-10 people at a time, as it has been for the last 20 years. One might even consider minimizing or shutting down that activity in the future if real payoffs cannot be demonstrated.  This would be a boon to all unmanned spaceflight. Robotic exploration of any and all places in the solar system might flourish. Other “pure science” spaceflight missions might also flourish. The downside: human spaceflight might dwindle to nothing. Following that, it might not restarted for a very long time, if ever. Humans will remain firmly bonded to the Earth for the foreseeable future.  One other risk: many taxpayers support unmanned spaceflight on the (possibly erroneous) understanding that these are unmanned “pathfinders” that firstly explore where humans will ultimately go to later. If the taxpayer is told that humans will NEVER EVER go to these places, then public perception might be that unmanned spaceflight exists solely to satisfy the curiosity of scientists at lofty universities – and public support for such endeavors under such a scenario might evaporate.

So, where do folks stand on this? I would be interested in hearing other opinions.