Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

BWhite · 2004-11-15 18:17:38

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04zh.html]Article here:

( 1 & 2 ) ISS and Shuttle.

No way, no how will the orbiter fly enough to finish ISS by 2010. Even if it did, there are no crew transfer vehicels to get folks up and down.

Again, Bell predicts that within a year or two, ISS will be formally abandoned by the US.

The only logical answer to this paradox is that the Space Shuttle will be cancelled sometime in CY2005, and along with it will go any further serious US participation in the ISS.

( 3 ) Hubble robotic repair?

Ain't going to happen. Too difficult.

Robotic de-orbit? Not necessary.

Killer quote:

And for those of you who say that we need to launch some kind of Hubble-grabbing spacecraft anyway to make a controlled deorbit of Hubble, I say that this requirement is ludicrous. Tons of space junk and natural meteorites fall on the Earth every year, and there is no reliable record of anyone being killed.
* * *
At the risk of sounding like Bob Zubrin
If we can't tolerate this tiny level of risk to the public, we might as well give up on exploring space, even with unmanned vehicles.

( 4 ) JIMO - this is a big one. Attn Josh Cryer & clark

Bell claims the engineers and the scientists have failed to agree on whether JIMO will fly polar or equatorial orbits. Scientists assumed polar as being needed for genuine mapping. Engineers assumed equatorial as being easier and needing less fuel.

Bottom line? JIMO mission architecture may not work without a bigger booster than we possess.

( 5 ) Mars sample return.

Not needed. There are plenty of Mars bits on Earth and if we spent the sample return money on searching for Mars meteorites, we would get far more material at a far lower cost.

(My attitude towards lunar mining mirrors this thinking. Mining landfills will be easier and more profitbale than mining the moon.)

Discuss and enjoy. I merely post this to facilitate discussion.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-15 20:38:29

As far as Shuttle/ISS goes (we really need to come up with a clever combination acronym) there are three routes:

-Shuttle can do the job with a reduced launch manifest, that some of the ISS bells/wistles will be deleted, and the US will send up some token astronauts on Soyuz until it can change public focus onto the Lunar program. This is probobly what NASA will be forced to try for.

-Shuttle can't really do the job, but by golly, the NASA admin is going to try anyway. Bell's "conspiracy theory" hinges on NASA doing (or being forced to do) the logical thing, which is not at all a certainty. NASA has been doing somthing illogical since it rolled Columbia out to the pad for the first time.

-Shuttle can't do the job and the RTF debacle is a ploy to save face and prolong engineers' employment through the elections until some time in 2005 or 2006, and the US "unilaterally" withdraws from the ISS agreement until improved launch vehicles, tugs, and the CEV are developed.

I'm with Bell as far as Hubble goes.

I think Bell is more questioning if JIMO will even be launched or not, although I am all for nuclear reactor development, they just aren't really suitable for probes versus a bank of advanced dynamic RTGs. It is signifigantly possible his conspiracy theory that JIMO is a "stealth" means to build nuclear reactors for VSE is accurate, especially since O'Keefe knows about submarines and not spacecraft.

I don't think that MSR is such a bad idea though, Bell probobly isn't a geologist and doesn't really know what he's talking about comparing blasted meteors to core samples. It depends on how good NASA's robotics can become and how you'd get the payloads back efficently (ISRU? Solar ion?)

As a side note, whoever came up with the $25 billion dollar price tag for CEV is obviously either a lunatic or else not thinking about just the capsule... A decent percentage of that money would pay for the key componet in an EELV-centerd Earth Orbit Rendevous missions: a maneuverable cryogenic transit stage. Such a componet would permit affordable limited scale access to the Moon or push JIMO to Jupiter, not break the bank, and flying on EELV would be less financially risky then HLLV.

Or a big chunk of that $25 billion is for a real live heavy lift rocket development, which would cost a few billion for SDV or ~$8-10Bn for clean sheet (depending on size).

clark · 2004-11-16 10:10:07

Bell looks to have covered all the angles.

ISS will not be abandonded. I agree with GCN, it will simply be redesigned for a completed ISS by 2010. We've redesigned ISS several times over the last decade, we will continue to do so. It will be limited, but then it's total value is a wash to begin with.

Hubble repair will be attempted. No one can predict (not even my hobo) the outcome.

Failure will see a controlled deorbit of the Hubble because, regardless of what Bell says, it is not responsible to allow Hubble to crash to Earth where it might cause some damage. It's big, and pieces of it will survive reentry.

Best case scenerio would be to send up a dual mission to repair Hubble, if it fails, have whatever it is that is trying to repair Hubble also have the capability to deorbit the bird.

JIMO? It's going to happen. Engineers and scientists quibble, but the mission planners will look at the constraints and come up with a middle ground that can be achieved by exisiting launch infrastructures. Some scientists will win, some lose. JIMO is about testing nuclear propulsion in space. That is the primary reason it is getting funding and support. Not for jupiter/planetary science. That is secondary.

It's in the Office of Exploration for goodness sake. That should tell us something.

Mars sample return... the samples are unimportant, but the technology demonstration is very important. That's where the value is. That's where most of the value of VSE is- not the science, but the attempts to push our capability.

His analysis is off because he is weighting the wrong things. Scientists are not in charge. Everything we are doing now is gearing towards expanding capabilities so at the end of the day, we can say, "we can do X. Mr Scientist, what can you do with this?"

C M Edwards · 2004-11-16 11:28:10

Wait a minute - we can kill the shuttle and ISS programs with one stroke? Bell has to be wrong - nobody's that lucky. :;):

Actually, I prefer Clark's argument.

Hubble has no remaining net future value. Though still useful, anything we pay to salvage it will be more than the probe itself is worth. However, a salvage mission has value beyond the price of the cool junk we'll find. If we can save Hubble, just think of all the other failed satellites we could recover. It would save the industry billions. The recovery technology alone is worth developing, even if its just sent up to chase spent rocket stages on its first mission.

If there is sufficient support for a Hubble salvage mission, NASA would be foolish not to try it. Who cares what actually happens to the telescope itself if the recovery effort is successful? A replacement is already planned. Hubble would be a flash in the pan compared to the impact of practical space salvage.

The same goes for Mars sample return missions. It's not about the rocks any more than a Hubble recovery mission is about the telescope.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-16 12:00:48

Agreed it is what you do with it once you have it.

Salvaging of satelites maybe a little different for the owner must give up there claims for anyone to feel that it is worth while to venture into a very costly proposition.

The next part about the satelite salvage will be the in orbit ability to change planes over vast distances. Maybe solar energy and magnetic propulsion in some form.

As for the present senerio of bone head concepts and choice making we only need to look at the past to see how if staying the course will end up in the far off future. Stuck in LEO...

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-16 14:53:47

Satelite repair is a great sounding pie-in-the-sky concept, except it falls flat on its face in reality.

The reality is, that satelites arne't built to be serviced in orbit, so it will be essentially impossible to fix them. Hubble's systems are designed to be swaped out on orbit, most satelites are not. Designing a satelite with these provisions would drive up their cost substantially.

Second, most repair missions will require replacement componets and heavy rocket fuel, which will require you to launch a payload specifically tailored for that satellite, where you run the risk that you simply won't have brought the pieces you actually need

Then you need to get this payload and your repair robot all the way up to GEO orbit, which requires a great deal of delta-V, which itself requires lots of rocket fuel that demands a bigger launcher, or a long-duration ion engine burn which limits the number of satelites you can service.

Or you can launch a brand new satellite that has a much higher probability of working, and you are going to have to launch a rocket anyway too. Might as well.

Satelite repair is a stupid waste of reasources... Nor is a HST repair going to happen, Congress won't give them the money.

John Creighton · 2004-11-16 15:30:04

Second, most repair missions will require replacement componets and heavy rocket fuel, which will require you to launch a payload specifically tailored for that satellite, where you run the risk that you simply won't have brought the pieces you actually need

Bring the replacment parts to ISS with the next crew for resuply?

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-16 16:08:09

No see, the problem is that you don't know for sure what is wrong with the satelite, you can guess from the telemtry data, but you might get up there and find that its actually a different problem... and you wouldn't have the parts to fix it.

This doesn't change the fact that no robot can fix a satelite on orbit that isn't intended to be serviced on orbit.

ISS resupply will never have enough spare capacity for satelite servicing payloads, plus it is not only in too low of an orbit, the orbit is highly inclined, requiring much much more fuel to send such payloads to GEO.

Satelite servicing on orbit is just a bad idea.

clark · 2004-11-17 07:12:05

LOL!

The reality is, that satelites arne't built to be serviced in orbit, so it will be essentially impossible to fix them. Hubble's systems are designed to be swaped out on orbit, most satelites are not. Designing a satelite with these provisions would drive up their cost substantially

Of course! The reality is that no one designs a system to be serviced if there is no capability to service it!

Repairing HST, building a system of infrastructure and experience that allows for on-orbit system repair means that future systems can be designed to fit in within exsisting capabilities.

The problem with Hubble is that it was designed to be serviced, but not by any of the means we are thinking of doing it now. So of course, there are less than optimum solutions. Yet, if it succeeds, or even partially succeeds, it will allow us and others to design sats to be serviced by robotic means.

I fail to see how desigining a system to have swapable components increases the cost of the system.

Then you need to get this payload and your repair robot all the way up to GEO orbit, which requires a great deal of delta-V, which itself requires lots of rocket fuel that demands a bigger launcher, or a long-duration ion engine burn which limits the number of satelites you can service.

OR, you send up the servicining robot for lonf durations, rely on ion engines that go slowly, but last along time, and send up additional fuel for the servicing robot as needed. You launch component parts (which is fractionaly cheaper than an entire sat launch) for capture by the servicing robot.

So you can only service a few sats at a time, so what? That creates a demand for more robots to service more sats. Hell, most sats have to be shut down for lack of fuel, not for mechanical failure- having the means to refuel in orbit would extend their lifetimes, which is far cheaper in most cases than building anew.

Congress will give the money for HST. What happens after that though is anyone's guess.

John Creighton · 2004-11-17 09:23:09

ISS resupply will never have enough spare capacity for satelite servicing payloads, plus it is not only in too low of an orbit, the orbit is highly inclined, requiring much much more fuel to send such payloads to GEO.

Well if the ISS is not a practical staging point an alternative could be to send up the equipment to fix more then one satellite each rocket shipment. Extra parts could even be sent for anticipated future failures. If satellite designers start standardizing their parts like in JSF then this will become even more practical. The robot could even go to the satellite before the parts arrive if the satellite wasn’t equipped with enough onboard diagnostic equipment. When there is enough servicing robots a depot could be set up for fuel and spare parts. In such a setup obsolete satellites may be canalized for spare parts.

In a future depot there could be a more powerful huller that halls supplies between the depot and the ISS for the repair robots. Of course one step at a time.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-17 09:28:39

OR, you send up the servicining robot for long durations, rely on ion engines that go slowly, but last along time, and send up additional fuel for the servicing robot as needed. You launch component parts (which is fractionaly cheaper than an entire sat launch) for capture by the servicing robot.

Had thought of that same or simular concept for space junk removal and I do agree with you on the servicing of units while in orbit. It is more than worth the effort in the long run.
The question is one of ownership versus salvage rights in some cases once item is considered abandoned.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-17 10:20:51

How simple of you Clark,

Of course designing a system to be serviceable on orbit will add signifigant cost, for a variety of reasons. The biggest issue being that satelite electrons become obsolete as computer technology improves. So not only do you need to add a docking port with fuel transfer valves/plumbing, but you need to basically be able to gut the satelite to replace computer componets. Solar arrays, batteries, and power conditioning equipment may have to be swapped out too.

So lets review, what are the major componets of a satelite? The bus structure, the electronic componets, the stationkeeping fuel and small engine(s), batteries, solar arrays, and transcievers. Since so little of the hardware is worth saving, just the metal structure, the fuel tanks & engines, and antennas (maybe the solar arrays), that it just isn't worth it. Save your money and just launch a second satelite. It won't weigh nor cost that much more plus be less risky.

If all you are doing is replenishing the stationkeeping fuel and swapping out batteries, that might be practical to some extent, but with batteries getting lighter and satelites now starting to be equipped with ion engines, its a better idea just to launch the original satelite with extra instead of doing something stupid like launching a second rocket with replacements. It would be much easier just to pack enough of these consumeables to last the non-obsolete life of the satelites' electronics then it would be to go up and service them.

"So you can only service a few sats at a time, so what?"

Answer: Because of the long flight time between satelites that an ion engine can manage, the high cost of launching multiple repair satelites to achieve timely rates of repair would be prohibitive. If the equipment cost for a business to really get started is too high, then that business will fail, demand or not. Duh.

I reiterate that you don't KNOW for sure what exactly is wrong with a broken satelite unless you actually go and inspect it, and so you now need to make TWO many-month trips with your ion repair vehicle if you have to decend to low orbit for parts. Plus the time required to actually get the parts and launch them. It just keeps on getting worse.

Since the consumeables in satelites are getting lighter (LiH batteries, ion fuel) it is a better business case to just launch more of them on new satelites for the estimated time until the satelite is uselessly obsolete even if it did work. The trouble of designing a satelite to be gutted and the weight of replacement parts plus the high inherint risk in orbital repair ops, it just doesn't make sense. Use a bigger rocket to start with, and don't bother with a repair mission, since upgrading a satelite will be such an extensive operation that you might as well launch a new one.

PS: Oh, and with no market for satelite repair for exsisting birds, you are going to have one heck of a hard time talking the big satelite makers into bending over backwards to make them on-orbit serviceable for a repair business that doesn't yet exsist. Chicken and egg.

clark · 2004-11-17 10:59:58

That's me, simple clark. :laugh:

Of course designing a system to be serviceable on orbit will add signifigant cost, for a variety of reasons. The biggest issue being that satelite electrons become obsolete as computer technology improves.

Simple clark assumes that if we have a capability to reliably repair sats on orbit using autonomous servicing robots, we would redesign the entire sat to take advantage of this new capability. Simple clark assumes that much like a PC, the outer shell provides a body, and componenents can be swapped out as neccessary. A capability like this will no doubt change the entire design paradigim of sats as we currently achieve.

Instead of making one of a kind designs, we make modular-replaceable-standardized components. It dosen't take genuis to figure out that this is how we saw advances in economies of scale through our industrial revolution. It only takes a simple clark.

Since so little of the hardware is worth saving, just the metal structure, the fuel tanks & engines, and antennas (maybe the solar arrays), that it just isn't worth it. Save your money and just launch a second satelite. It won't weigh nor cost that much more plus be less risky.

The major cost is the mass launched in orbit. Your way continues to rely on launching large amounts of mass. A new way would allow for smaller launches, thus smaller mass/cost launches. It also reduces insurance costs since instead of losing a 1 billion dollar sat launch that must go up, you can launch multiple 5 million dollar component launches (you only need one to succeed).

Answer: Because of the long flight time between satelites that an ion engine can manage, the high cost of launching multiple repair satelites to achieve timely rates of repair would be prohibitive.

What's the rush? Usually, we have an idea on when a sat will need a repair- how long it can reasonably continue to function. We can often shut it down and leave it in a stand-by mode. It dosen't usually need a quicky-fix. Look at Hubble, we have years to approach the repair. Same with any future attempts at future sats that might take advantage of this.

I reiterate that you don't KNOW for sure what exactly is wrong with a broken satelite unless you actually go and inspect it, and so you now need to make TWO many-month trips with your ion repair vehicle if you have to decend to low orbit for parts. Plus the time required to actually get the parts and launch them. It just keeps on getting worse.

Sometimes, and many times we do know what is wrong, or what possibily could be wrong. We are also developing a seperate rendevous and monitoring sat that can fly within feet of a sat to inspect it. You're not very creative in looking at possible solutions. :laugh:

If you want more info regarding this though, look intot he military developments of monitoring sats that can autonomously fly and inspect other sats. It's part of the ASW research program. They've already successfuly tested this.

John Creighton · 2004-11-17 11:08:03

Of course designing a system to be serviceable on orbit will add signifigant cost, for a variety of reasons. The biggest issue being that satelite electrons become obsolete as computer technology improves.

Why? You can still buy the microprocessors from the first PC for a few dollars. They show up everywhere. If needed you can custom make connecters pretty easy. Granted satellites can still become obsolete with changes in signal processing technology or optics. However the parts to repair old satellites won’t be too hard to obtain.

Euler · 2004-11-17 12:17:06

The major cost is the mass launched in orbit. Your way continues to rely on launching large amounts of mass. A new way would allow for smaller launches, thus smaller mass/cost launches. It also reduces insurance costs since instead of losing a 1 billion dollar sat launch that must go up, you can launch multiple 5 million dollar component launches (you only need one to succeed).

It costs a lot more to launch multiple small payloads than it does to launch one large payload with the same amount of mass.

What's the rush? Usually, we have an idea on when a sat will need a repair- how long it can reasonably continue to function. We can often shut it down and leave it in a stand-by mode. It dosen't usually need a quicky-fix. Look at Hubble, we have years to approach the repair. Same with any future attempts at future sats that might take advantage of this.

If it takes too long than your expensive repairer will not be able to service very many sats before it breaks or runs out of fuel.

Why? You can still buy the microprocessors from the first PC for a few dollars. They show up everywhere. If needed you can custom make connecters pretty easy. Granted satellites can still become obsolete with changes in signal processing technology or optics. However the parts to repair old satellites won’t be too hard to obtain.

If you repair a broken obsolete satellite, all you get is a fixed obsolete satellite. It is usually more economical to build a new, modern, satellite.

John Creighton · 2004-11-17 13:18:08

If you repair a broken obsolete satellite, all you get is a fixed obsolete satellite. It is usually more economical to build a new, modern, satellite.

Do we know this or are we just drawing conclusions from hubble? Can you point to a study that looks at what percent of satellites are obsolete by the time they fail?

clark · 2004-11-17 13:31:04

It costs a lot more to launch multiple small payloads than it does to launch one large payload with the same amount of mass.

I'm poor at math.

1 billion for a new sat, launched in one go, with any number of problems along the way that will destroy it before it reaches orbit.

10 million for a component, easily replaced.

In some instances, yes, it will be better to replace an exsisting sat. In some instances it will be better to replace parts of a sat. It simply depends on the economics of it. Many people approach this same issue with their cars.

I am not suggesting that it will always be the optimum solution.

Also, small lanches have more flexibility in their design parameters becasue there are more options for launch. The bigger you get, the more constrained you become because you have fewer and fewer launch options. Look at the big picture.

If it takes too long than your expensive repairer will not be able to service very many sats before it breaks or runs out of fuel.

Well, we're dealing with a lot unknowns here. Primarily, how long one od these things can stay in service, and how cheap can they be made and launched.

If you repair a broken obsolete satellite, all you get is a fixed obsolete satellite. It is usually more economical to build a new, modern, satellite.

Okay, look at it this way: Mars Society manages to raise enough capital to build a sat of their own. It works for 10 years, but is nearing then end of it's life time. Mars Society cannot raise enough capital to replace the entire sat that will last 10 more years, but can raise enough capital to refurbish parts of it to make it useful for another 5.

Can you not see the value in this?

Euler · 2004-11-17 14:04:35

I'm poor at math.
1 billion for a new sat, launched in one go, with any number of problems along the way that will destroy it before it reaches orbit.
10 million for a component, easily replaced.

I don't see it becoming that cheap to replace a component on a GEO satellite in the near future.

Okay, look at it this way: Mars Society manages to raise enough capital to build a sat of their own. It works for 10 years, but is nearing then end of it's life time. Mars Society cannot raise enough capital to replace the entire sat that will last 10 more years, but can raise enough capital to refurbish parts of it to make it useful for another 5.

An average satellite launched now will be around 10 times more capable than the old satellite. You can sell off excess bandwidth in order to be able to afford a new satellite.

clark · 2004-11-17 14:14:57

don't see it becoming that cheap to replace a component on a GEO satellite in the near future.

Don't worry, my one eyed hobo can see better than all of us. In the valley of the blind, the one eyed man is king. :;): :laugh:

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-10-01 16:59:47

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-11-15 18:17:38

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#2 2004-11-15 20:38:29

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#3 2004-11-16 10:10:07

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#4 2004-11-16 11:28:10

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#5 2004-11-16 12:00:48

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#6 2004-11-16 14:53:47

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#7 2004-11-16 15:30:04

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#8 2004-11-16 16:08:09

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#9 2004-11-17 07:12:05

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#10 2004-11-17 09:23:09

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#11 2004-11-17 09:28:39

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#12 2004-11-17 10:20:51

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#13 2004-11-17 10:59:58

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#14 2004-11-17 11:08:03

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#15 2004-11-17 12:17:06

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#16 2004-11-17 13:18:08

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#17 2004-11-17 13:31:04

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#18 2004-11-17 14:04:35

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#19 2004-11-17 14:14:57

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

#20 2005-10-01 16:59:47

Re: Jeff Bell strikes again - Five predicted failures for NASA

Board footer