News World space agencies publish plans for future space exploration

[Wood]

World space agencies publish plans for future space exploration.

"Over the past year, the International Space Exploration Coordination Group (ISECG) has developed a long-range exploration strategy that begins with the International Space Station (ISS) and expands human presence in the Solar System, leading ultimately to human missions to explore the surface of Mars."

The Global Exploration Roadmap (pdf)

 

[SiberianTiger]

Nice digest, thanks. Hopefully, we won't be reviewing it in grief and regret in another 20 years.

 

[Wishbone]

It is basically a declaration: "No Mars while you live, dudes". :hmm: :thumbsdown:

 

[Tychonaut]

It is basically a declaration: "No Mars while you live, dudes". :hmm: :thumbsdown:

But, but...isn't SLS, the immaculately-conceived spawn of Saturn V and the Space Shuttle, going to be the one true path to Mars in our lifetimes??? :lol:
You're right, though, we can forget about any of these space agencies getting anyone to Mars anytime soon. Even their "Lunar Reference Architecture" has a human return to the Moon ten years after the start date...whenever that is.
The surest sign nobody is going anywhere is that the national space agencies got together and created this. It's one thing for them to cooperate, but when bureaucracies join forces to create a new multinational bureacracy, you know they've reached the Next Level, where they exist solely to perpetuate themselves, and not to accomplish anything useful. It was bound to happen.

New rule for all space agencies: no more PDF roadmaps, strategies, or reference architectures, and especially no more Powerpoint spaceships, until the first human sets foot on Mars. Violators get to be part of the TPS on an experimental Mars lander. It will be ablative, very ablative.

 

[Wood]

Human Space Exploration Community Workshop on the Global Exploration Roadmap - Nov. 14-16, 2011, San Diego, Calif.

A bunch of interesting presentations by NASA, CSA, JAXA and various aerospace companies. I like Boeing's ISS Exploration Platform concept in particular, I might try to create something like it in Orbiter.

 

[Ark]

Just sounds like the same stuff kicked another 10 or 20 years down the road. We said Mars was 20 years away 30 years ago...

 

[Wood]

Exploration Gateway Platform hosting Reusable Lunar Lander proposed

"In a potential marriage of the Space Launch System (SLS) with a central exploration plan, a Boeing-authored presentation has proposed an Exploration Gateway Platform architecture that not only returns man to the lunar surface – via the use of only one SLS launch to a reusable Lunar Lander – but provides a baseline for pathfinders towards an eventual crewed mission to Mars."

 

[T.Neo]

Oh, I am so impressed. Because talking about "roadmaps" and reusable landers and deep space habitats is so comparable to the endeavour of actually doing those things in reality.

No seriously, this stuff is just rubbish. It is worthless. Fancy words, "studies", and nothing more. It is the same stuff that we've been seeing for decades; Mars has been 20 years away, since 1950. Since "Man Will Conquer Space Soon", and the Disney-von Braun collaboration.

It is a lot of the same stuff re-hashed over and over again, and also a justification for things that have practically no motivation in space exploration, and every motivation in politics and corporate interests. And this is motivated by said things, motivated by said interests. It is totally backwards.

And "exploration" has become a buzzword of sorts. It sounds fancy and stirs the imagination; whether it is linked to any real exploration is irrelevant. Expect to hear it keep coming up in the coming years.

It is also pretty funny to note that SLS now has a new third stage for actual cislunar work, in addition to its upper stage. Which begs the question as to why SLS has an upper stage at all (of course, the real answer is clear: with no third stage, there is no J-2X contract, and with no J-2X contract, a lot of people will be unhappy).

I would rather pay the cost of this study for a crate of rancid cat litter, than pay for something like this to be created. Because stuff like this should not be used to waste public money.

Leave it to hobbyists, to make Orbiter addons like this. Then it will perhaps have some value.

 

[Codz]

Exploration Gateway Platform hosting Reusable Lunar Lander proposed

Sounds good to me.:thumbup:

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

It is also pretty funny to note that SLS now has a new third stage for actual cislunar work, in addition to its upper stage. Which begs the question as to why SLS has an upper stage at all (of course, the real answer is clear: with no third stage, there is no J-2X contract, and with no J-2X contract, a lot of people will be unhappy).

You are completely wrong (as usual). The upper stage will use the J-2X, but the Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (CPS) may not. The upper stage is needed to get the CPS + payload into orbit.

In future, if you're not going to make a positive contribution to a thread, can you just not post? I tire of reading your money making conspiracy rubbish. This isn't about HLV vs. alternatives - this is about fact vs. make believe.

 

[Codz]

You are completely wrong (as usual). The upper stage will use the J-2X, but the Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (CPS) may not. The upper stage is needed to get the CPS + payload into orbit.

In future, if you're not going to make a positive contribution to a thread, can you just not post? I tire of reading your money making conspiracy rubbish. This isn't about HLV vs. alternatives - this is about fact vs. make believe.

Let's just back up for a minute. Remember, attack the idea not the person.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Let's just back up for a minute. Remember, attack the idea not the person.

Sure - T.Neo for sure has a right to express his opinion - but he states his opinions like they are facts, when the actual facts are very different.

If somebody wants to make an anti-SLS argument, then fair enough, but at least get the facts right - that's all I'm saying! :tiphat:

 

[T.Neo]

You are completely wrong (as usual). The upper stage will use the J-2X, but the Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (CPS) may not.

Nowhere did I say anything to contradict that.

The upper stage is needed to get the CPS + payload into orbit.

Yes, but this is standard "you have to use an HLV" practice. You could also launch the payload and CPS on two different vehicles and perform a rendezvous in orbit.

In future, if you're not going to make a positive contribution to a thread, can you just not post? I tire of reading your money making conspiracy rubbish. This isn't about HLV vs. alternatives - this is about fact vs. make believe.

At least I do not feel threatened enough to call the alternatives to my preferred plan "make believe".

It is not "money making conspiracy rubbish", it is backed up by clear evidence in reality, unlike your support for SLS. Which is seemingly only based on "it is from NASA, therefore it must be best". Despite the evidence stacking heavily against this argument: since Apollo, NASA has essentially failed at developing technology for its human spaceflight program, sometimes spectacularly (looking at the Constellation program here).

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Yes, but this is standard "you have to use an HLV" practice. You could also launch the payload and CPS on two different vehicles and perform a rendezvous in orbit.

This is true. But this is an HLV vs. EELV argument, which was not the point of my original post.

I am sorry, but at least I do not feel threatened enough to call the alternatives to my beloved, preferred plan "make believe".

It is not "money making conspiracy rubbish", it is backed up by clear evidence in reality, unlike your support for SLS. Which is seemingly only based on "it is from NASA, therefore it must be best". Despite the evidence stacking heavily against this argument: since Apollo, NASA has essentially failed at developing technology for its human spaceflight program, sometimes spectacularly.

This has nothing to do with alternatives to HLVs. This is about you saying things that you present as facts, when in reality, you are completely wrong. You said that the CPS exists to get J-2X contracts - that statement is completely false, since the J-2X will be used on the upper stage anyway, and the CPS may not use the J-2X at all.

I have no problem at all with people making arguments for alternatives to HLVs, even though I do support SLS. What irks me is people who make up untrue statements as I described above, then present them as facts, instead of opinion.

 

[T.Neo]

This is true. But this is an HLV vs. EELV argument, which was not the point of my original post.

In this case, it isn't. It's "SLS 130 ton vs SLS 70 ton".

This has nothing to do with alternatives to HLVs. This is about you saying things that you present as facts, when in reality, you are completely wrong. You said that the CPS exists to get J-2X contracts - that statement is completely false, since the J-2X will be used on the upper stage anyway, and the CPS may not use the J-2X at all.

I did not say that at all. I said that the upper stage (the stage that definitely uses the J-2X) exists to use the J-2X, and the CPS exists despite the fact that SLS has an upper stage.

The J-2X is a high thrust, relatively low (claimed 448 seconds for the current version, perhaps 450-455 seconds for the lower thrust J-2XD development) ISP engine. For upper stages, and moreso in-space tugs, ISP is generally more important than thrust.

Ares I needed a high-thrust upper stage due to its unique performance and ascent profile, and there was an incentive to share this with the CaLV. But since there is no longer Ares I, there is no need to share the J-2X and a lessened incentive for its outright existence since clusters of existing, higher ISP engines can do the job.

For developing in-space tugs, going from a clean sheet you'd totally want to ditch the J-2X and go straight to expander-type engines such as the RL-10. Of course, if J-2X development stopped, it would be politically disappointing to certain parties.

In the three stage case, with one launch a year (this is hypothetically speaking), you have to pay for the facilities that build the core, SSMEs, boosters, and payload fairing, as well as the launch facilities. As well as the facilities that construct the upper stage.

In the two stage case, you have to pay the same cost for those same facilities, plus some marginal costs, but without the extra overheads for the upper stage. And it can come at other advantages (no development costs for new engines, making engine cost cheaper to other RL-10 users).

The whole reason the 130 ton arrangement of SLS exists is to ensure the use of the J-2X. If you don't launch the CPS and payload on a single vehicle, you don't need the 130 ton capability and you don't need the J-2X.

Of course: there could be other advantages to a single launch, or it could indeed be cheaper to build another stage rather than launch twice. But these arguments need to be justified properly, rather than "NASA did it, therefore it must be best".

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Well, at least there's an explanation, as opposed to a one-line statement with no backing theory.

Alternative engines such as the RL-10 are being considered for the CPS. I don't deny that one of the reasons for the existence of the J-2X is economic/sustainment of industry - but whether or not the J-2X exists entirely for this purpose is a matter of opinion (which both you and I are perfectly entitled to). :tiphat:

 

[T.Neo]

Economic? Sustainment of industry?

Pratt & Whitney is a huge company! One little rocket engine contract or not, is not going to determine whether it sinks or swims. Likely nobody else is going to use this engine, so the industry for it is useless, and it has dubious credit even within its own proposed use.

Sorry, but I just cannot believe that the purpose of government is to funnel money into the mouths of selected private companies. I guess, you can have a differing opinion on the matter... but so will I.

And we really have to ask: what is the J-2X supposed to do technologically for humanity. It is nothing special; it is really just a big dinosaur (and I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way, dinosaurs are cool) of an engine. It displays no real advantages in terms of performance; its ISP is unexceptional, as is its thrust. It displays no superb cost decreases against 'competing' systems, and it is not meant to be reusable.

If the J-2X dies, most of the world will not miss it. If NASA was truely pushing things like sustainment of industry here, it would be assisting in the development of a large scale staged combustion booster engine- an area where the US has practically no industry whatsoever.

Even the historical justification of the J-2X is murky; originally Ares V was to use the J-2S and Ares I to use an airstarted SSME; soon Ares I went to a five segment SRB and a J-2, and a revived J-2S evolved into the whole new development of the J-2X. But as with the rest of the Constellation program, it need not make sense... :dry:

One thing is for sure: the move to the new engine development was politically favourable- whether you believe it to be the motivation for the J-2X's existence or not.

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

Pratt & Whitney is a huge company! One little rocket engine contract or not, is not going to determine whether it sinks or swims. Likely nobody else is going to use this engine, so the industry for it is useless, and it has dubious credit even within its own proposed use.

If that's the case, then why were Pratt & Whitney considering the sale of Rocketdyne prior to the SLS announcement?

Sorry, but I just cannot believe that the purpose of government is to funnel money into the mouths of selected private companies. I guess, you can have a differing opinion on the matter... but so will I.

I too agree that government shouldn't exist to line the pockets of company executives - but sometimes, funding companies' work does bring benefits to politicians' districts, such as creating high-tech jobs, lowering unemployment, etc.

One thing is for sure: the move to the new engine development was politically favourable- whether you believe it to be the motivation for the J-2X's existence or not.

I agree with this completely. But what I say is, just because it has political benefits, doesn't mean it isn't useful for other things. I think politics is ONE of the reasons for its existence, but not the WHOLE reason.

 

[T.Neo]

If that's the case, then why were Pratt & Whitney considering the sale of Rocketdyne prior to the SLS announcement?

Their tactics for doing so need not have been "if we do not get this contract, Rocketdyne could be unprofitable and a burden".

PWR has contracts for the RS-68, the RL-10s, as well as the RD-180 through RD Amross... it has a lot of other work. If it can't survive without development contracts from NASA, one really has to wonder about its business case.

I too agree that government shouldn't exist to line the pockets of company executives - but sometimes, funding companies' work does bring benefits to politicians' districts, such as creating high-tech jobs, lowering unemployment, etc.

So: it's better for a space program to bring benefits to specific districts, than to be a successful space program?

I have no issue with enriching society on the ground (that is a big positive impact of a space program), I just do not like the idea of the goals being self-defeating.

And I do not believe that politicians are selfless people of unfaltering integrity. If they were, their actions would be more justifiable. But they're not fallible. They're human, and power corrupts.

And there are thousands, millions of people in the US that live in particularly bad poverty. If the aim is a government giveaway, would it not pay more to help them even slightly, rather than fund the salaries of a relative few aerospace engineers and other people in such professions?

I agree with this completely. But what I say is, just because it has political benefits, doesn't mean it isn't useful for other things. I think politics is ONE of the reasons for its existence, but not the WHOLE reason.

But this is what confuses me: what is the non-political reason for the existence of the J-2X?

It is the engine for a heavy-lift vehicle, because it used to be the engine for a heavy-lift vehicle, because it used to be the engine for the unusual medium-lift vehicle that accompanied the heavy-lift vehicle, due to changes that occured during development.

And now we come right back to politics, because Ares was a plethora of political motivation.

And if we look at it another way: if the numbers coming out of the DIRECT concept are to be believed (and they should be verifiable with mathematics), The 4 RL-60 version of the Jupiter outperforms the 1 J-2X version by roughly half a percent to LEO, and while the 6 RL-10B-2 version underperforms the J-2X version to LEO by nearly 4%, as an EDS it only underperforms the J-2X version by less than a percent, and the RL-60 version outperforms the J-2X version by roughly 4%.

When comparing the J-2X and RL-10 versions, you're considering differences of only a few percent at most... differences of only a few tons for LEO missions, and only a few hundred kilograms for TLI ones.

And when you weigh up a disadvantage of a few hundred kilograms versus a multi-billion new engine contract, a lower cost per engine cluster than the single-engine at the same flight-rate, plus cost-sharing with the USAF or even commercial customers... if there are nonpolitical reasons in there, they are probably minimal, and the development of the engine can fairly be called politically motivated.

 

[Pablo49]

It's one thing for them to cooperate, but when bureaucracies join forces to create a new multinational bureacracy, you know they've reached the Next Level, where they exist solely to perpetuate themselves, and not to accomplish anything useful.

The Wire: Space Edition