News NASA's Future: The News and Updates Thread

[Urwumpe]

A veto would be really the best that could happen to US spaceflight... really funny to say that, since usually a veto means cutting costs more... but it is a different kind of cutting costs now.

Now the world just has to define even manned spaceflight as service (unmanned spaceflight often already is)

 

[orb]

Parabolic Arc: NASA: SLS to Return Americans to Deep Space

 

[orb]

Florida Today: KSC master-plan rewrite under way for new launches:

{...}

KSC’s master plan has not received a major revision since 2003, Carlson said. That was a year before President George W. Bush announced his now-scrapped plan to create a lunar outpost and sent astronauts to Mars.

Now, Carlson’s department has drafted a 44-page master-strategy rewrite through 2031 — much of which “flies in the face” of typical NASA planning. For example, new safety guidelines must be set “so Company A doesn’t make a mistake and blow up Company B,” he quipped.

These concepts were approved in February at NASA headquarters. Now, Carlson’s office will spend the next 12 to 15 months fleshing out details.

Among infrastructure and operational initiatives discussed during the TPO meeting:

• Introduce simplified billing policies offering flexibility for commercial companies, including calculating up-front how much a launch will cost.
  
  “They want to buy services by the yard. They don’t want to have to pay for a standing army, the way we’ve been used to operating for a while,” Carlson said.
  
  
• Fashion launch-pad architecture to accommodate multiple vehicles.
  
  “We have never used more than one pad for more than one launch vehicle,” he said.
  
  
• Forge maintenance partnerships with the Florida Department of Transportation for KSC’s five rail and vehicle bridges.
  
  
• Establish a rail link with Port Canaveral.

“With this vision of diversifying ourselves, we will be in a better position five years from now and 10 years from now,” Carlson said.

“When — not if, but when — the federal government once again changes its mind of how it wants to use the space center, NASA will adapt and change appropriately,” he said.

{...}

 

[orb]

Florida Today: SpaceX success boosts NASA's venture with private companies:

WASHINGTON — Almost from the time he was appointed to lead NASA in 2009, Charles F. Bolden Jr., has urged a skeptical Congress to endorse the idea of flying U.S. astronauts on a rocket developed by a private company with the space agency's help.

On Friday, Bolden earned the right to do a little gloating as California-based SpaceX became the first private firm to navigate a spacecraft to the International Space Station.

“Today is, and I'm not overstating this, a day that will go down in history,” the former shuttle commander told an enthusiastic audience at the International Space Development Conference.

On either side of him, two large projection screens displayed a slightly delayed feed of the unmanned SpaceX Dragon vehicle slowly approaching the space station. When Bolden announced around 10 a.m. that the space station's robotic arm had grabbed the Dragon, the crowd inside the Grand Hyatt Hotel ballroom, which included former Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin, erupted in cheers.

“The debate about our direction is over and we're moving strongly into implementing some very exciting plans,” Bolden said. “If you're still wondering if this new era is real, I think the SpaceX success this week should begin to dispel those notions.”

SpaceX was flying the Dragon on a demonstration mission to prove its readiness to begin making cargo deliveries to the outpost. The company is also one of many vying to win a contract to someday carry U.S. astronauts.

But congressional debate over the Commercial Crew Program, which teams NASA with private companies to develop a new crew taxi to the space station, is far from over.

Earlier this month, the Republican-controlled House adopted a fiscal 2013 spending bill that would provide $500 million for the program — more than it's getting this fiscal year but considerably less than the $830 million President Barack Obama asked for.

The Democratic-run Senate has yet to finalize its NASA spending bill but a key committee has endorsed $525 million for the program.

{...}

 

[RGClark]

I have seen the future, and it is commercial!


Bob Clark

 

[FADEC]

I am very glad that Bolden tries to endorse the idea of flying U.S. astronauts aboard Dragon. It will safe money and time as it did already.

The course NASA currently is heading to seems to make less and less sense since Dragon is alive and the CST might become alive as well. NASA should focus on astronaut training, mission definition and preparation, and get the order to develop hardware for future deep space missions (habitation modules, lunar/mars/asteroid landers etc.) While SpaceX should be ordered to develop Falcon heavy after manrating Dragon. But instead, NASA is going to build a giant rocket once again with no further concepts behind. I can already smell exorbitant development and operating costs, budegt problems, and lots of delays.

 

[N_Molson]

Yes, of course. Notice that all SpaceX projects rely on the Merlin1/2/C engine, which uses the LOX as and oxydizer and Kerosene (RP-1) as fuel. A revolution. The SSME and RS-68 used for the STS and the Delta4 rockets are useless hardware, for sure. The developpement of the J2-X as a LOX/LH2 upperstage is useless too. Why make complex things when simple ones works ? 27 cheap engines will sure do better that several high-tech ones. I'm very confident that a cheap mission to Mars can be designed with an ISP ~= 340 seconds. Things like powerful ion thrusters or VASMIR must definitively be ruled out, pure fantasy. .

We should stop using cars too. Thats too expensive. And trains. And planes.

I have seen the future, and it is commercial!

Commercial SSTOs ?

 

[Unstung]

27 cheap engines will sure do better that several high-tech ones.

Speaking of having so many engines, the N1 had 30. That worked out well. I don't know how the Russians did it with the R-7 either. I suppose that and the Falcon 9 have fewer problems.

 

[FADEC]

Yes, of course. Notice that all SpaceX projects rely on the Merlin1/2/C engine, which uses the LOX as and oxydizer and Kerosene (RP-1) as fuel. A revolution. The SSME and RS-68 used for the STS and the Delta4 rockets are useless hardware, for sure. The developpement of the J2-X as a LOX/LH2 upperstage is useless too.

The SSME is nearly 40 years of age and complex as hell.

Why make complex things when simple ones works?

That's why they developed the less complex (than SSME) RS-68: to make it cheaper.

27 cheap engines will sure do better that several high-tech ones.

Falcon 9 seems to be reliable for now. Falcon heavy isn't using different engines so I think it will be equally reliable.

I'm very confident that a cheap mission to Mars can be designed with an ISP ~= 340 seconds.

I think for a mission to Mars we need something that has to be carried into orbit first anyway. It could also be carried by Falcon heavy. Propulsion modules using powerful ion thrusters or VASMIR for example

That the SLS could go anywhere into the solar system, manned, because it is a giant rocket, is quite an empty promise if you ask me.

Things have to be carried into orbit and assembled first I think. Do it the Apollo way won't work anymore for real deep space missions. The Moon was only 2 days away and reached by a crew of three. A deep space long duration mission certainly will consist of larger crews and will carry much more hardware and goods.

What NASA currently is planing reminds me of the famous "I want to do Apollo again" video, in which they discuss using a giant rocket vs. many smaller rockets. NASA is repeating a huge mistake for sure. It will end up with budget issues again. It would be better to stop it and take a commercial course while NASA could free up budget and resources to develop hardware for deep space missions, carried into space commercially to safe lots of money and time.

Commercial SSTOs?

I doubt the future is SSTO. Especially not for huge payloads.

 

[N_Molson]

That worked out well.

Oh yes, uh like 4 failures on 4 launches ?!? :blink:

I don't know how the Russians did it with the R-7 either.

The R-7 use RD-107/108 then RD-117/118 engines that are a four-chambers design. One engine, four chambers, four nozzles. Much less problems than 4 separate engines. At launch, the R-7 runs 5 main engines. Its one of the most (if not the most) reliable launchers in the world.

I suppose that and the Falcon 9 have fewer problems.

I don't get why.

That's why they developed the less complex (than SSME) RS-68: to make it cheaper.

SSME Isp = 453 sec. (vac)
RS-68 Isp = 420 sec. (vac)

Though the RS-68 is still much more efficient than Kero/LOX engines, there's really a significant difference (33 sec.) between the two. No check, no high-tech. What still makes the RS-68 interesting is its better thrust. Ariane 5 Vulcain 2, another high-end engine, has "only" an Isp of 434 sec.

The SSME is very near the theoretical Isp limit of the LOX/LH2 combination (~460-470 sec.). It will be very hard and awfully expensive to gain a few more seconds of Isp. What can be done is trying to make it simpler and less expensive (and manufacturing more of those would lower the costs), while maintaining or improving the performance.

The only way to gain Isp with chemical propulsion is to use very toxic/expensive tripropellant combinations using fluorine, boron, and other exotic materials. While interesting on the paper, they are unpractical in live conditions.

Propulsion modules using powerful ion thrusters or VASMIR for example

Using those will very probably require a nuclear fission reactor. To send that into orbit, you need a Very-Heavy launch vehicle anyway. There are heavy parts that have to stay in one piece (like the pressure chamber around the core, and heavy radiation shielding elements).

Assembly in orbit is not the question. A one-shot mission to Mars would require a launcher able to lift off 350 tons or more, which causes structural, engineering and safety problems (the required quantity of propellant grows exponentially with the payload capacity to LEO).

Concerning projects like Moonbases, L1 space stations, Mars permanent settlements, you also need to send heavy pieces of equipment. Just try in Orbiter, its made for such experiments.

It will end up with budget issues again.

Thats a matter of political will. I don't believe that the future of humanity can be bargained.

 

[FADEC]

I don't believe that the future of humanity can be bargained.

In fact it already is. Just look up to earth orbit right now. And I'd say it works quite well for now (except those annoying delays).

As for sending heavy parts to space:

it is certainly possible to do all this with something smaller than the SLS, like Falcon Heavy in multiple launches rather than with a giant rocket in fewer launches. Landing on Mars for example also has limits. It has got an atmosphere. So sending huge parts down there might be difficult, especially on parachutes.

Impossibility exists basically in the political world of thinking. But in space flight there are multiple ways. The Russian Proton can't even carry half of what Falcon Heavy will be able to carry. But it still was used to assemble Mir and ISS. Falcon Heavy is a very good and cheap opportunity. It can carry more as twice as much.

The Problem with the SLS and Orion is that there is no further concept. It does not seem smart to design such a rocket and have nothing more to offer than a small capsule on top while there already is a working system that has just send a capsule to the ISS. It is a waste of money and time with no further outcome, except creating and maintaining jobs at NASA. But their timeline already ends in 2021, with a hypothetical manned fly-by of the Moon, which makes no sense at all. That's not even Apollo on Steroids. That's a sad remain of Constellation proposals.

SpaceX certainly is not going to do what Elon Musk predicts in terms of going to Mars. But SpaceX offers a great opportunity for NASA. If they don't take it, we'll be stuck in LEO for another decades for very sure.

 

[N_Molson]

So sending huge parts down there might be difficult, especially on parachutes.

Mars atmosphere is 0.01% as dense as on Earth. Parachutes work only for light probes. They would have to be insanely huge for heavier stuff that will have to carry a thermal shield protecting the engine, then to perform a powered descend once jettisoned.

The Problem with the SLS and Orion is that there is no further concept. It does not seem smart to design such a rocket and have nothing more to offer than a small capsule on top

On what proofs do you make such assumption ? I'm pretty confident that there are projects on NASA drawing boards, for an Asteroid or Mars mission.

But their timeline already ends in 2021, with a hypothetical manned fly-by of the Moon, which makes no sense at all.

Wrong. Read this : http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/525162main_HEFT_Final_Brief_508_20110309.pdf

If they don't take it, we'll be stuck in LEO for another decades for very sure.

Anyway (and sadly), given the current state of politics & economics, I don't expect anything concerning deep-space exploration before 2020. Well, not from USA at least. Mars for 2050 seems a pretty realistic time schedule for me. I fear that 2035 will be too short. What I hope is to be alive to see that.

 

[FADEC]

On what proofs do you make such assumption? I'm pretty confident that there are projects on NASA drawing boards, for an Asteroid or Mars mission.

Constellation already was promising a lot without lots of real existing hardware. And they still almost haven't got anything beside Orion as far as I know.

 

[N_Molson]

And they still almost haven't got anything beside Orion as far as I know.

Well, given the rather conservative timeline given by NASA, thats not surprising. Its ten years ahead. Enough to design and build the required hardware.

Constellation was G.W. Bush idea. Like other things he did, it was ill-planned.

 

[T.Neo]

Why make complex things when simple ones works ?

Yes, but seriously: why?

The key is cost and safety. It is pretty backwards-thinking to assume that the most advanced technology possible will always deliver those results. If, for example, SpaceX tried to develop a staged combustion kerolox engine, they would still be developing a staged combustion kerolox engine.

The same goes with McDonnell Douglas/Boeing's decision to build an all-new gas generator engine for the Delta IV, rather than an all-new staged combustion engine (or utilise/modify the SSME design). The result is an engine that, at high production rates, could have a cost of $15 million, compared to around $25 million for a production SSME.

27 cheap engines will sure do better that several high-tech ones.

Most definitely.

1. They're simpler to manufacture and work with, and thus will have lower recurring and infrastructure costs.

2. Their production rate is higher, so cost is further driven down by mass production.

3. They are under less stressful flight conditions (lower pressures, RPM, etc) and are thus (based solely on stress on the system) less likely to fail, and less likely to fail in a way that causes a LOV event (though to what extent depends on one's trust for SpaceX's claims to reduce the likelihood of sympathetic engine RUD).

4. Since there are more engines, the total flight firing-time is greatly superior to that of a vehicle with far fewer engines. With more telemetry gathered, more knowledge can be built up about how the system behaves- also potentially enhancing safety. In terms of Merlin 1C engine-flight time, Falcon 9 has collected as much as nearly 20 Atlas V flights (assuming a first stage burn time of 175 seconds for Falcon, and 240 seconds for Atlas).

5. With a greater production history, knowledge of production procedures should be more refined- again reducing costs and potentially safety risk as well.

Much less problems than 4 separate engines.

That depends on how much of the failure risk lies in the chamber, and how much of the failure risk lies in the gas generator and associated hardware...

I'm very confident that a cheap mission to Mars can be designed with an ISP ~= 340 seconds.

Noone is seriously suggesting flying a Mars mission with a ~340 second engine in the place of propulsion kingpin.

I'm pretty confident that there are projects on NASA drawing boards, for an Asteroid or Mars mission.

Forgive me for being a terrible cynic here, but: a "project on a NASA drawing board" is pretty much worthless. That's just the way these things work- development is a cut-throat environment and only the fittest denizens of it survive- if at all.

There is an absolute multitude of concept designs littering the decades-long history of NASA that sadly amounted to nothing.

Ok, I lie: they are good candidates to make into Orbiter addons.

 

[N_Molson]

(No, I won't respond to T-Neo's rethoric. Time better spent on Anim8tor or Visual Studio).

:bailout:

 

[T.Neo]

I take it that you have expressed silent approval of the facts I've put forward, then.

 

[N_Molson]

Certainly not. :nono:

Have you ever considered a carreer as a lawyer ? I think you could shine there

 

[T.Neo]

Oh well, reality can't win everyone over, can it?

Law? Not particularly. Not enough truths about rocket engine production economy there. :lol:

 

[FADEC]

Well, given the rather conservative timeline given by NASA, thats not surprising. Its ten years ahead. Enough to design and build the required hardware.

Constellation was G.W. Bush idea. Like other things he did, it was ill-planned.

It is also surprising what happened to the 20 billion USD spend on Ares I development; a rocket that was supposed to carry nothing more than a shrinked version of Orion into low earth orbit. SpaceX managed to design and test a rocket, for only a few hundred million USD, including a capsule which has the same capabilities in terms of crew size and going beyond low earth orbit. It even docked to the ISS while in the meantime Orion mockups are still splasing down in a pool. That's quite a little outcome for such a huge agency.

I don't like to see a second STS in terms of operating costs compared to initial promises. I doubt that the SLS would be anything but affordable. And for now it carries nothing more than a small capsule on top.

NASA should work together with SpaceX not only for ISS but also for the futue. And I think there is nothing wrong with that.