The future of Manned Spaceflight

namloc1980

With the impending completion of the STS program, cancellation of the Constellation program and with the Russian Soyuz soon to be the only way of ferrying humans to and from the ISS, human spaceflight seems to be taking backwards steps in recent times.

In addition, Obama's space policy seems all over the place. He wants the commercial sector to take over LEO launches but also wants to send astronauts to an asteroid by 2025 but he set out no plan of how this would be achieved.

Is it too pessimistic to think that the US manned space program (I don't think the Russians/Chinese will do much more than LEO flights) is in terminal decline from the heights of Apollo and STS to bumming a lift from the Russians and the commercial sector?

Capt'n Midnight

The Russians have been using that rocket since 1957. Launch costs are about $65m and they've got plenty of reliability statistics.

In Russia they say "Better is the enemy of good enough."




In America they have a saying "If it works it's obsolete"

The Americans are spending billions reinventing the wheel.
"Reusable" Shuttle launches are averaging about $1,300 each.
One of the reasons for the cost descrepency is that Soyuz weighs 7 tonnes and the shuttle 78 tonnes. 5 shuttles / 133 launches works out at about 3 tonnes of very expensive nearly hand built barely out of pre-production shuttle per launch , the Russian orbiters are mass produced.


But the laws of physics don't change. You are still going to need to get the same delta-v from the same chemical energy in the same rocket fuels.

You can't use higher energy fuels like ozone because they are too unstable to be safe. Prechilling means you get a bit more fuel in the rocket, but it limits your time waiting for ideal launch conditions which don't help reliabity and missing launchs is expensive.


How much would it cost to develop a new rocket rater than making the Saturn 5 ?

Todays Saturn 5 would benefit from advances in metalurgy, fasteners, insulation and lighter electronics - the trick is not to mess about with things that have a major impact on reliability like the turbopumps. In fact if it was up to me I'd leave Stage 1 more or less as is apart from obvious advances in material technology but with a lot of design walk throughs to justify all possible effects of any substitutions , because you don't want new resonance frequencies or find out the hard way that lead free solder is not compatible with hydrogen peroxide. The object is not to find ways to remove the last ounce rather it's to take advantages of stuff like aerogel and perhaps (reliability is more important than tiny increments in weight) lithium alloys or advanced composite materials.

But the key point is that it would be incremantal modifications of a proven design rather than a blank sheet of paper.


Then again Dragon has had it's first orbital test so the US should have maned launch capability in the next 3-5 years
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dragon_%28spacecraft%29

Capt'n Midnight

namloc1980 wrote: »

Is it too pessimistic to think that the US manned space program (I don't think the Russians/Chinese will do much more than LEO flights) is in terminal decline from the heights of Apollo and STS to bumming a lift from the Russians and the commercial sector?

There was ONE manned mission by the US in the eight years between Skylab and the Shuttle and it was for political reasons.

As one person put it Apollo was like a dog marking it's territory.

Russians had plans for a moon shot but had problems with the launcher, IIRC the Chinese are planning to go to the moon.

The US space program is so wasteful that it's hard not to think that one of it's main functions is provide state subsidised jobs.

Beeker

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There was ONE manned mission by the US in the eight years between Skylab and the Shuttle and it was for political reasons.

That was the ASTP flight in 1975 and I agree it was a political stunt, but it also served to set the stage for future co-operation between the US and Russia with Shuttle/MIR and the ISS.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

As one person put it Apollo was like a dog marking it's territory.

Thats one way of looking at:D it but Apollo was far more than that. It was an expression of hope and inspiration to many generations and not just Americans.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Russians had plans for a moon shot but had problems with the launcher, IIRC the Chinese are planning to go to the moon.

China have made all the right noises and moves to head for the Moon but I think if they plan to set up a base there, they have a lot of work to do yet but It might be enough to inspire the international community to do likewise.:)

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The US space program is so wasteful that it's hard not to think that one of it's main functions is provide state subsidised jobs.

There has certainly been a lot of waste within NASA but without NASA we would never have been able to explore space. Private industry was never in a position to do so. More money needs to be spent on science/robot missions to the planets and moons of the solar system. There has never been enough money for that. Manned flights and especially the Shuttle have been expensive and have forced NASA to divert money away from science missions in the past. With the end of US manned flights I hope that trend reverses. Commercial manned flights should lead to a reduction in costs and hopefully manned and unmanned flights will be equally funded into the future.:)
State subsidised jobs? Perhaps, but it has provided a wealth of knowledge for the entire planet.

BULLER

namloc1980 wrote: »

In addition, Obama's space policy seems all over the place. He wants the commercial sector to take over LEO launches but also wants to send astronauts to an asteroid by 2025 but he set out no plan of how this would be achieved.

Is it too pessimistic to think that the US manned space program (I don't think the Russians/Chinese will do much more than LEO flights) is in terminal decline from the heights of Apollo and STS to bumming a lift from the Russians and the commercial sector?

Au contraire I think Obama's plan is very logical, especially given that the US is spiralling into crazy debt. What do you find "all over the place" exactly?

Cheap commercial access to space will be revolutionary. NASA should be focusing on exploring, not with being primarily weighed dwon by upkeeping a LEO taxi.
Its very encouraging to know that there will never be a gap between not being able to transport people to space, with multiple companys being able to send people to space. This is definately progress and Im really excited as to what effect cheap access to space will have.

By the way, have you heard of SpaceX?

clln

BULLER wrote: »

By the way, have you heard of SpaceX?

Yeah they are that crowd that are on America's most wanted for stealing Pas 39B,and will dump her when done with her!:pac:
OUCH BULLER,i see you where reading the STS-134 thread after all!
less of the tribalelectrification please!, more later when i have chance to catch up,,,,,,,,,,watch this Space!

Capt'n Midnight

Beeker wrote: »

There has certainly been a lot of waste within NASA but without NASA we would never have been able to explore space.

NASA got man to the moon first. But then again they were getting over 4% of the Fedral Budget during some of those years. "Waste everything but time" And the Soviets got most of the other firsts.

Lunokhod still has the distance record of any rover.

Water on the moon was found by the Indians.

Don't mention camera lens covers to the Russians.

NASA biggest contribution was Voyager 2 and it wasn't supposed to go on the grand tour.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Halley_Armada

clln

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

There was ONE manned mission by the US in the eight years between Skylab and the Shuttle and it was for political reasons.

Yes Nixon and Brezhnev had decided it would be a good part of Detante,
but a universal docking adapter came out of the silly PR stunt and now allows many nations to plan using co-operation.

As one person put it Apollo was like a dog marking it's territory.

Apollo unlike Shuttle paid for itself at least ten times over.
Scientists would have come up with a much better solution than the STS without political interference,the Military are responsible for many of its design flaws.

Russians had plans for a moon shot but had problems with the launcher,

Yes on one occasion their planned moon rocked exploded killing over a thousand but was hushed up.
Sergi Korolev had to keep persueding the Kremlin that Manned Spaceflight was needed for Military purpose's or Vostok 1 would never have happened

IIRC the Chinese are planning to go to the moon.

They are half way to completing their first Space Station,maximum stay about three weeks,to be followed by a much larger station if things work out.
the Chinese Govt have stopped funding in the past also unless a Military purpose could be found for it.
the Chinese People in general despise the money being spent on it while some of them have to 'eat cake'.
nothing other than unmanned probes to Moon confirmed yet by China,but it would be to mineral farm if it happened.

The US space program is so wasteful that it's hard not to think that one of it's main functions is provide state subsidised jobs.

Most would agree with You there but as i have said on another thread FDR's new deal pulled America out of the great depression.
exciting times ahead medium term,but bad ones short term.:(

Beeker

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

NASA got man to the moon first. But then again they were getting over 4% of the Fedral Budget during some of those years. "Waste everything but time" And the Soviets got most of the other firsts.

Lunokhod still has the distance record of any rover.

Water on the moon was found by the Indians.

Don't mention camera lens covers to the Russians.

NASA biggest contribution was Voyager 2 and it wasn't supposed to go on the grand tour.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Halley_Armada

Being first is not what space exploration is about now. That was all during the cold war.
NASA gave us the Pionerer probes, the Viking landers on Mars, the amazing Mars Rovers, Cassini to Saturn, Magellan to Venus, Galileo to Jupiter, Ulysses to the Sun, Hubble! and of course the Voyager 1 and 2 probes to the stars, Man on the Moon........................The list goes on and on:)

Capt'n Midnight

Beeker wrote: »

Being first is not what space exploration is about now. That was all during the cold war.
NASA gave us the Pionerer probes, the Viking landers on Mars, the amazing Mars Rovers, Cassini to Saturn, Magellan to Venus, Galileo to Jupiter, Ulysses to the Sun, Hubble! and of course the Voyager 1 and 2 probes to the stars, Man on the Moon........................The list goes on and on:)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/European_Space_Agency

ESA joined NASA in the IUE, the world's first high-orbit telescope, which was launched in 1978 and operated very successfully for 18 years. A number of successful Earth-orbit projects followed, and in 1986 ESA began Giotto, its first deep-space mission, to study the Comets Halley and Grigg-Skjellerup. Hipparcos, a star-mapping mission, was launched in 1989 and in the 1990s SOHO, Ulysses and the Hubble Space Telescope were all jointly carried out with NASA. Recent scientific missions in cooperation with NASA include the Cassini-Huygens space probe, to which ESA contributed by building the Titan landing module Huygens.
...
Most notable for its new self-confidence are ESA's own recent successful missions SMART-1, a probe testing cutting-edge new space propulsion technology, the Mars Express and Venus Express missions as well as the development of the Ariane 5 rocket and its role in the ISS partnership. ESA maintains its scientific and research projects mainly for astronomy-space missions such as Corot, launched on 27 December 2006, a milestone in the search for extrasolar planets.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/venera.html - Russian landers on Venus

missions to mars - The Galactic Ghoul at work
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetary_mars.html

thecornflake

I remember seeing the idea here of bringing the shuttles E.T. into orbit rather than allowing it to burn up in the atmosphere. would this not be a fantastic way of getting raw materials into orbit for use in a ship for say a lunar mission, mars mission or even linking them up into a space station. Same with the shuttles themselves why not leave them in orbit for parts or for conversion into another ship.

its very costly to launch these raw materials into orbit so why not take advantage of what we have now? The shuttle has lots of parts which could be used in building a ship for lunar missions.

I thought this kind of method would be the way forward instead of the huge waste that seems to be made during missions lately.

namloc1980

BULLER wrote: »

Au contraire I think Obama's plan is very logical, especially given that the US is spiralling into crazy debt. What do you find "all over the place" exactly?

Cheap commercial access to space will be revolutionary. NASA should be focusing on exploring, not with being primarily weighed dwon by upkeeping a LEO taxi.
Its very encouraging to know that there will never be a gap between not being able to transport people to space, with multiple companys being able to send people to space. This is definately progress and Im really excited as to what effect cheap access to space will have.

By the way, have you heard of SpaceX?

The point is, and the reason I said it was all over the place, is that NASA should be doing the exploration and not the taxiing, yet Obama's policy is to try and do both. Calling for a shuttle derived launch system to be ready in 2016 is simply going to result in billions upon billions of dollars being spent on something that is firstly, derived from expensive to run but now outmoded 1970's technology, and secondly, something that can be done better and cheaper by the likes of SpaceX. This is on top of the billions that have been written off in the Constellation program. Where is the logic in that?

Beeker

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/European_Space_Agency


http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/venera.html - Russian landers on Venus

missions to mars - The Galactic Ghoul at work
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetary_mars.html

I don't see your point to be honest The ESA, Russia and now China, India and Japan have all done great things in space not just NASA. This is and will always be an international effort. Mistakes have been made along the way and more will be. Money has been wasted and will be again by all sides.
NASA is just one of the many agencies worldwide that has pushed our species forward and expanded the human horizon. It is by far the best at inspiring people young and old to reach for the stars. It is a human organisation, flawed to be sure but built of the "right stuff":)

Capt'n Midnight

Beeker wrote: »

NASA is just one of the many agencies worldwide that has pushed our species forward and expanded the human horizon. It is by far the best at inspiring people young and old to reach for the stars. It is a human organisation, flawed to be sure but built of the "right stuff":)

NASA has done some good stuff , but manned space exploration would have happened anyway. For expanding our view of the solar system and WOW factor Voyager 2 won't be beaten, can anyone put a value on the PR boosts it kept giving NASA ?


Interesting projects shelved when NASA took over the space racer include a possible DynaSoar / X15 on XB70 Carrier - much of the hardware needed for a resuable launcher existed in the 1960's but was shelved.

(must look up the project that might have outshown the X15 too)

Beeker

Should get some idea of where NASA are heading at 20:30 Irish time this evening.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/may/HQ_M11_099_Next_Transport.html

MEDIA ADVISORY : M11-099


NASA Announces Milestone For Future Human Spaceflight


WASHINGTON -- NASA will host a media teleconference at 3:30 p.m. EDT on Tuesday, May 24, to discuss an agency decision that will define the next transportation system to carry humans into deep space.

Douglas Cooke, associate administrator for NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate in Washington, will take reporters' questions during the teleconference.

To participate, reporters must e-mail their name, media affiliation and telephone number to J.D. Harrington at j.d.harrington@nasa.gov by 2:30 p.m. EDT Tuesday.

Audio of the teleconference will be streamed live at:


http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio

For more information about NASA's plans for future human space exploration, visit:


http://www.nasa.gov/exploration


- end -

BULLER

Missed the audio feed but reports on websites said that they would work continue work on a slightly modified Orion and under the new, less glamerous, name of MPCV. (Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle)

namloc1980

So here it is, the Shuttle replacement and NASA's first beyond LEO capable craft since Apollo, the Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV):



It's based on work and design already put into the Orion craft. It will carry up to 4 astronauts on missions beyond LEO. One thing I noticed is that there is no lander element with this unlike the Altair lander in the now cancelled Constellation program. Fly-by & orbit missions only?

Capt'n Midnight

namloc1980 wrote: »

So here it is, the Shuttle replacement and NASA's first beyond LEO capable craft since Apollo, the Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV):

Meanwhile in Russia :P
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/199/1

While sending a Soyuz to the Moon might seem novel, Anderman noted that it had already been done, in a sense. In the late 1960s the Soviet Union sent several stripped-down unmanned Soyuz spacecraft, called Zond, to the Moon in a bid to develop a manned lunar vehicle that could beat the Americans to the Moon.

AugustusMinimus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The US space program is so wasteful that it's hard not to think that one of it's main functions is provide state subsidised jobs.

The biggest waste at NASA is the constant funding of new programmes which later get cancelled.

The list is almost endless

Rockwell X30 (National Aero Space Plane)
Lockheed Martin X33 (VentureStar scale demonstrator)
Project Constellation

Those 3 project alone account for Billions. Maybe 25 Billion altogether.

It's shocking waste. The X33 project was cancelled when the X33 was something like 95% complete. Rocketdyne had fully designed those linear aero-spike engines which could be the most advanced rocket engines ever built. Yet they have never been and may never be used.

It's almost infuriating.

AugustusMinimus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Meanwhile in Russia :P
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/199/1

The problem was those missions was that the rocket being used couldn't lift enough cargo into Lunar orbit for a surface mission.

The N1 rocket which could have done so exploded several times on the launch pad at Baiknour.

There's a lot of reasons why they couldn't get it to work.

- Some of the most complex plumbing of any rocket in history due to the sheer number of engines
- The fact that the rocket was built in Moscow, but was pieced together in Kazakhstan before the launch

By all accounts, a lot of contemporary scientists believe that this rocket simply couldn't have launched. It might have just shaken itself to bits.

Capt'n Midnight

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

It's shocking waste. The X33 project was cancelled when the X33 was something like 95% complete. Rocketdyne had fully designed those linear aero-spike engines which could be the most advanced rocket engines ever built. Yet they have never been and may never be used.

It's almost infuriating.

SSTO with reusable craft isn't a runner.

Perhaps it was part of "Star Wars" the attempt to bankrupt the Russians by having them Keep up with the Jones or pretending to show capabilities that were never there.

Re rocket engines have a look at the flight proven NK33's

AugustusMinimus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

SSTO with reusable craft isn't a runner.

Perhaps it was part of "Star Wars" the attempt to bankrupt the Russians by having them Keep up with the Jones or pretending to show capabilities that were never there.

Re rocket engines have a look at the flight proven NK33's

It was and is possible. You just have to carry a very large proportion of fuel compared to total launch weight.

The problem with the X33 was the fuel tank. By all accounts, Lockheed solved all of the problems on it, but Bush cancelled the programme anyways thinking that the Space Shuttle could go on forever.


The X30 on the other hand most certainly was not possible. Why anyone thought a scramjet on such a scale would have been possible in the early 90s is beyond me.

namloc1980

Looks like a small vehicle. Gonna be a cramped trip to an asteroid or Mars.

djhaxman

Feels like we're going backwards instead of progressing

Beeker

namloc1980 wrote: »

Looks like a small vehicle. Gonna be a cramped trip to an asteroid or Mars.

Its not that small. It will be bigger that the Soyuz and the Apollo. Not as big as Shuttle but dont forget that the crew compartment of the shuttle is also not that large. On any long trip the Orion would be docked to a larger crew accommodation module. The crew would only be confined to the Orion for launch and landing.

AugustusMinimus

namloc1980 wrote: »

Looks like a small vehicle. Gonna be a cramped trip to an asteroid or Mars.

Astronauts wouldn't use it to live in on a trip to Mars. A special habitat module would be used which would be much much bigger.

namloc1980

Beeker wrote: »

Its not that small. It will be bigger that the Soyuz and the Apollo. Not as big as Shuttle but dont forget that the crew compartment of the shuttle is also not that large. On any long trip the Orion would be docked to a larger crew accommodation module. The crew would only be confined to the Orion for launch and landing.

That's only speculation. A separate crew module was not part of Constellation nor is it mentioned anywhere in the new Obama policy.

Beeker

namloc1980 wrote: »

That's only speculation. A separate crew module was not part of Constellation nor is it mentioned anywhere in the new Obama policy.

True it is speculation but it is also pratical and necessary for a successful flight. The Orion capsule is not big enough to allow for a long duration flight. You need space for crew to exercise and room to carry food etc.

namloc1980

Beeker wrote: »

True it is speculation but it is also pratical and necessary for a successful flight. The Orion capsule is not big enough to allow for a long duration flight. You need space for crew to exercise and room to carry food etc.

Well, the MPCV can sustain 4 crew for 21 days so I suspect a mission to a near Earth asteroid will involve two MPCVs docked together (as pictured above) which should sustain 4 crew for 6 weeks. A mission to Mars is a long long way off I fear

AugustusMinimus

namloc1980 wrote: »

That's only speculation. A separate crew module was not part of Constellation nor is it mentioned anywhere in the new Obama policy.

I'm sure I've seen drawings by NASA for the Mars Transit Habitation Module which was part of Constellation. Either way, it will have to be built for any possible mission to Mars.

Some suggest just using on of Bigelow Space's inflatable modules.

Stonewolf

Surprised none of you guys have mentioned Skylon yet.

It's not like it's any less tangible a concept than any of the NASA plans. It has strong private sector backing*, government support and a reasonable timescale. The ESA recently completed a technical audit and are now interested in seeing further demonstrations as it is being pitched as a replacement for the Ariane 5.

REL would have us believe they can achieve $10000 per kilo which I personally think is a bit ambitious but it does have concepts for manned (though robotic) flight once it's been proven as a reliable launch platform with unmanned flights.

The major technical problem with the project is the complicated engine which is an airbreathing rocket. The company have recently made important advances in materials and construction though and the ESA are expecting a demonstrator of the precooler unit this summer which if successful will enable development of prototype engine units.

* REL are basing their business model exclusively on building spaceplanes and associated equipment, essentially the same model as modern aircraft manufacturers. They plan to leave the operation to someone else.

Capt'n Midnight

Stonewolf wrote: »

Surprised none of you guys have mentioned Skylon yet.

The target to beat is something like $65m per launch with a 1,700 launch track record.


Skylon like any reusable SSTO has to have the added weight of re-entry insulation around the tanks and added weight of engines too.

I can't find a link that goes into deatil on this but we've had close to SSTO for a very long time.

Vostok was 1.5 stage to orbit, once the boosters fell away the centre contiuned to orbit. Atlas was even closer , it dropped two booster engines and kept the remaining engines and all tanks into orbit. I'm referring to the original ones, later versions had aditional stages)

Saturn V , stages 2 and 3 had enough mass fraction to make it to orbit. Yes the payload would have been quite small BUT you could get a wet lab to orbit in one go. Or for manned launches you'd have no separations which had got to be safer, and you are basing it on hardware which has proved to be very reliable in the past. Fuel efficiency is poor, but fuel is cheap.

Capt'n Midnight

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

The problem was those missions was that the rocket being used couldn't lift enough cargo into Lunar orbit for a surface mission.

true, but it showed that Soyuz was an option.

The N1 rocket which could have done so exploded several times on the launch pad at Baiknour.

There's a lot of reasons why they couldn't get it to work.

- Some of the most complex plumbing of any rocket in history due to the sheer number of engines
- The fact that the rocket was built in Moscow, but was pieced together in Kazakhstan before the launch

By all accounts, a lot of contemporary scientists believe that this rocket simply couldn't have launched. It might have just shaken itself to bits.

Technically speaking 3 out of 4 launched, they just didn't get very far (12km 1Km and 40Km)

and part of the problem was political interference in design choices, like using lots of small engines rather than design a new one - IIRC they reckoned they would need to get 4 launched in a row before they were safe enough for humans, but the US had got to the moon so just wasn't worth the hassle. Anyway didn't Energia have a greater payload ?

Shuttle had the similar problem with asembley the only reason an O ring seal was needed was to provide jobs in the midwest, otherwise you'd build on the coast and use a barge to deliver it in one piece.

Other problem with N1 was that it had spherical tanks, and support structure and aerodynamic bits. If you use tanks for the structure of the rocket then it means you have stronger tanks.

reliability isn't something you can bolt on afterwards, it's much easier to over-engineer especially on stage one where weight isn't that big of a penalty

Capt'n Midnight

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

The problem with the X33 was the fuel tank. By all accounts, Lockheed solved all of the problems on it, but Bush cancelled the programme anyways thinking that the Space Shuttle could go on forever.

Yeah didn't they increase the size of it fivefold along the way ?

Rubecula

Stonewolf wrote: »

Surprised none of you guys have mentioned Skylon yet.

It's not like it's any less tangible a concept than any of the NASA plans. It has strong private sector backing*, government support and a reasonable timescale. The ESA recently completed a technical audit and are now interested in seeing further demonstrations as it is being pitched as a replacement for the Ariane 5.

REL would have us believe they can achieve $10000 per kilo which I personally think is a bit ambitious but it does have concepts for manned (though robotic) flight once it's been proven as a reliable launch platform with unmanned flights.

The major technical problem with the project is the complicated engine which is an airbreathing rocket. The company have recently made important advances in materials and construction though and the ESA are expecting a demonstrator of the precooler unit this summer which if successful will enable development of prototype engine units.

* REL are basing their business model exclusively on building spaceplanes and associated equipment, essentially the same model as modern aircraft manufacturers. They plan to leave the operation to someone else.

Skylon was on BBC teletext news today. Oh and there is a link to a story I posted just before you posted this in a thread called Old Stuff. The link is to HOTOL and it is being muted for Skylon.

Stonewolf

HOTOL and Skylon are different projects though, pursued by different organisations (though many of the same people) and with different engines.

Capt'n Midnight

Stonewolf wrote: »

HOTOL and Skylon are different projects though, pursued by different organisations (though many of the same people) and with different engines.

Sinn Fein/IRA :pac:

They aren't all that different, the different engine is to do with insurmountable ice problems but at heart it's still the same concept. With lots of dead weight. The othe big change is to do with center of gravity.


It's going to take a lot of money and time to get it man rated. It's going to take a lot of money and time to get any new launch system man rated. SpaceX will benefit from the "not invented here" even though it's not NASA, it's not foreign. The shuttle had a monopoly in the US for a long time - has anyone figured out how much that cost the US economy in the end ?


The really odd thing is that something dumb like seadragon could be more reliable as it has less parts and would be ridiculously over-engineered and benefit from it's surface to volume ratio, (stuff like more proportionatly more fuel to cool the engine) and possibly reusable.


unfortunatley you can't use a space elevator or hall/ion thrust for humans as it's too slow. Linear accelerators and stuff are too fast. So for the moment it's rockets for humans.

Using a sled for the first stage looks promising as it would enable SSTO without major advances in new technologies. Also it should be safer than air launch. With a sled you can put the brakes on if you don't have enough energy to fly to safety.

BULLER

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Sinn Fein/IRA :pac:

They aren't all that different, the different engine is to do with insurmountable ice problems but at heart it's still the same concept.

The problem is not insurmountable by any means! They are currently testing the pre-cooler which is the last piece of the puzzle on the SABRE; the results of which are out in June. Many investors have said if REL prove this part works, they will begin pouring serious money into the project.

And it's a fairly safe bet. The rest of the SABRE engine parts consists of "off-the-shelf" technology. I know your pessimism stems from the fact its been mooted for a good 20 years now in various forms, but make no mistake; this will absolutely revolutionise space travel and indeed commercial travel when they succeed.
Engineers from ESA recently conducted a study on the Skylon vehicle and were could see no obsticles toward its development if the pre-cooler technology is sound.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's going to take a lot of money and time to get it man rated. It's going to take a lot of money and time to get any new launch system man rated. SpaceX will benefit from the "not invented here" even though it's not NASA, it's not foreign. The shuttle had a monopoly in the US for a long time - has anyone figured out how much that cost the US economy in the end ?

I dont disagree that it will take millions but the returns would be absolutely colossal, and thats why investers will be queueing up! They project the cost to be in around the same as the development of the Airbus A380.

Also the sled idea is complete non-runner. Discounted by many engineers on the NasaSpaceFlight Forums every time it emerges annually.
I completely agree with you about the ultra heavy lifting sea dragon though

Capt'n Midnight

BULLER wrote: »

The problem is not insurmountable by any means! They are currently testing the pre-cooler which is the last piece of the puzzle on the SABRE; the results of which are out in June. Many investors have said if REL prove this part works, they will begin pouring serious money into the project.

Fingers crossed

Also the sled idea is complete non-runner. Discounted by many engineers on the NasaSpaceFlight Forums every time it emerges annually.

Interesting but at one time it was thought not to be possible to reuse the exhaust of turbopumps

slade_x

Beeker wrote: »

Should get some idea of where NASA are heading at 20:30 Irish time this evening.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/may/HQ_M11_099_Next_Transport.html

Came across this again so thought i'd post it

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/may/HQ_11-164_MPCV_Decision.html

Michael Braukus/J.D. Harrington
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1979/5241
michael.j.braukus@nasa.gov j.d.harrington@nasa.gov

Josh Byerly
Johnson Space Center, Houston
281-483-5111
bill.j.byerly@nasa.gov


May 24, 2011


RELEASE : 11-164


NASA Announces Key Decision For Next Deep Space Transportation System


WASHINGTON -- NASA has reached an important milestone for the next U.S. transportation system that will carry humans into deep space. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden announced today that the system will be based on designs originally planned for the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. Those plans now will be used to develop a new spacecraft known as the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV).

"We are committed to human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit and look forward to developing the next generation of systems to take us there," Bolden said. "The NASA Authorization Act lays out a clear path forward for us by handing off transportation to the International Space Station to our private sector partners, so we can focus on deep space exploration. As we aggressively continue our work on a heavy lift launch vehicle, we are moving forward with an existing contract to keep development of our new crew vehicle on track."

Lockheed Martin Corp. will continue working to develop the MPCV. The spacecraft will carry four astronauts for 21-day missions and be able to land in the Pacific Ocean off the California coast. The spacecraft will have a pressurized volume of 690 cubic feet, with 316 cubic feet of habitable space. It is designed to be 10 times safer during ascent and entry than its predecessor, the space shuttle.

"This selection does not indicate a business as usual mentality for NASA programs," said Douglas Cooke, associate administrator for the agency's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate in Washington. "The Orion government and industry team has shown exceptional creativity in finding ways to keep costs down through management techniques, technical solutions and innovation."

To learn more about the development of the MPCV, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/mpcv

- end -

We all know and appreciate the necessity for progress however unspectacular it may or may not seem to us at first. We will never stop, from early man exploring its own habitat to our present Endeavours (shuttle implication intended ) we wont stop, we just dont know how, we never did. To deep space, to Mars to the Jovian, Neptunian and Saturnian moons and beyond it is our current frontier and our potential knows no bounds. It may not be directly us but it will still be us; Our sons and daughters, their sons and daughters and so on

I'll take what i can get, im happy. To us, to our past, present and future achievements as a species whatever they might be. In short im very proud of what and who we are :cool:

It may seem just a tad excessive but i dont know, im in a good mood

Capt'n Midnight

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8483787.stm

India's space agency has said it will launch its first manned mission to space in 2016.

Isro says that it will soon shortlist two astronauts to train for the space flight.

The manned mission will cost 124 billion rupees ($2,676,740,597).

Delhi has given its approval for the mission, space officials told the BBC.

India's space agency is also setting up a full-fledged training facility in Bangalore to train the astronauts.

The country's first unmanned Moon mission, Chandrayaan, was launched last year.

The second unmanned project, Chandrayaan-II, will be launched in the first quarter of 2013 - a prelude to the manned space mission.

India's first Moon mission had to be terminated because of a failure of critical communication components, but Isro officials termed the mission a success because 95% of the scientific objectives were completed.

India also plans a mission to Mars in 2030.

clln

Honestly i think besides Bigelow some of the projects mentioned in the CCDev2 thread look even more simple and innovative!,Liquid rubber as the fuel and 'laughing gas' as the igniter!
sounds like Sci-Fi but Spaceship one used it and Virgin Galactic are using it too at least during testing.

India's idea's will not meet their timescale IMO.
they only have a Space Program to frighten their arch enemies Pakistan,as people know both where one Country before a terrible bloody Civil war when Ghandi through peaceful protest ended the days of the Raj.

China's technology for manned crafts is based on a LOT of help from Russias Soyuz.

i would be afraid to write off Companies like Space_x,Boeing/Bigelow, Blue Orion etc....... and who knows how many others have been waiting for funding from either COTS or CCDev?

There's potential Gold in them darn hills............. an even bigger prize than first man on the Moon!

Capt'n Midnight

slade_x wrote: »

We all know and appreciate the necessity for progress however unspectacular it may or may not seem to us at first.

Progress is good
Reinventing the wheel is not good.

Making a rocket 10 times safer than the shuttle is a difficult task.
Though the shuttle failures were mostly predictable. The SRB's should not have been built in segments. It just added weight and extra points of failure. The more I look into turbopumps failing (40,000 parts that must work :eek:) the more I like the idea of big dumb boosters that use pressure instead, yeah it wastes a lot of fuel, but fuel is cheap and the reduction in moving parts can't hurt.

There are other design flaws with the shuttle, but the biggie was the NASA culture of taking chances since "we got it away with it so far" The design goal for the shuttle was 99% reliability, had they a culture of incorporating safety into the design and operation then the shuttle might still be operational.


The shuttle was too big, one is reminded of Machevili's advice of not trusting the promises of princes.


http://www.astronautix.com/craft/dynasoar.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/kliper.htm

I don't think this was ever going to be a runner
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/hermes.htm

USAF projects before NASA got the job of sending man into space
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x15a3.htm

X15 on an XB70

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x15b.htm X15 to orbit

clln

clln wrote: »

Honestly i think besides Bigelow some of the projects mentioned in the CCDev2 thread look even more simple and innovative!,Liquid rubber as the fuel and 'laughing gas' as the igniter

left it too late to edit but this video nails it!

http://www.engineeringtv.com/video/The-Dream-Chaser-Shuttle-from-S;National-Space-Symposium-2011-V

Capt'n Midnight

clln wrote: »

Honestly i think besides Bigelow some of the projects mentioned in the CCDev2 thread look even more simple and innovative!,Liquid rubber as the fuel and 'laughing gas' as the igniter!

You can use practically anything for the first stage, cheap is good. For upper stages even small improvements mean a huge reduction in launch weight so a lot less choices there , usually a choice between cyrogenic, unstable , toxic ,or hypergloic or combinations of those attributes

Rubber is more or less a hydrocarbon, though its higer density means you save on the weight of tanks ( could you save even more by using solid fuel as support structure on the basis that less support would be need as the rocket would weigh less as the fuel burnt up ? )

Density is why liduid propellants are often prechilled to save another few % on tank weight since they are denser.

Other oxidisers are
spaceplane using Hydrogen Peroxide obtained through mid air refueling , use H2 or hydrocarbons as fuel
UK put a satellite into orbit with H2Os / Kerosene

my favorite just has to be this https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/ALICE_%28propellant%29

use ice as the oxidiser and aluminim (80 nm particles) as the fuel
no idea what the specific impulse so no idea how efficient it is.

Rubecula

I may be wrong but didn't Bert Rutan's vessel (The Virgin Galactic prototype or whatever you call it) use rubber as a propellant?

clln

Rubecula wrote: »

I may be wrong but didn't Bert Rutan's vessel (The Virgin Galactic prototype or whatever you call it) use rubber as a propellant?

Yes Rubecula Spaceship one!(still think that account by You about the night of the first Moonlanding on the Sky at night 700th show thread is Priceless!)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/ALICE_%28propellant%29

Lol at that link You gave Capt'n Midnight its as crazy as that guy in the song who was waiting 27 years for ALICE to give him a chance.

Sometimes i stray into threads with far more gusto than knowledge and Rocket propulsion is definatly not something i can claim to know a lot about as you can see from the other posters here!
Buller as far as i can find in Archives always had the most faith in Space-X and Musk.
When Augustus asked me a question after i posted the CCDev2 winners i was stumpfed for an answer. have had my eye off the ball of even the private companies that are not as Paranoid about secrecy as Blue Origion!

What fired Me up about that video is how far developed SNC's Dream Chaser is,could possibly carry a crew of seven.looks very safe, but most of all it could possibly service Hubble before it is too late.

There is just so much happening at once and so many Great threads and great people posting on them i literally cannot keep up!

Personally i have very little time for Virgin Galactic seems like a rich mans toy,but i suppose that is just tough on me!:)

AugustusMinimus

clln wrote: »

Personally i have very little time for Virgin Galactic seems like a rich mans toy,but i suppose that is just tough on me!:)

The way I look at it, is that it's all progress. Even better if it is commerically viable.

If Spaceship Two is sucessful, Branson hopes for Spaceship Three to do commercial 2 hour flights between London to Sydney and New York to Tokyo.

namloc1980

I see that the preferred architecture for NASAs new HLV to replace Shuttle is due to be selected in a few weeks. Excellent article here on the current process. It looks like it will be shuttle derived like this:



Basically it will have stretched shuttle SRBs and the ET will be stretched with shuttle main engines on it. The crew capsule will sit right at the top. Interesting times ahead.

AugustusMinimus

namloc1980 wrote: »

I see that the preferred architecture for NASAs new HLV to replace Shuttle is due to be selected in a few weeks. Excellent article here on the current process. It looks like it will be shuttle derived like this:



Basically it will have stretched shuttle SRBs and the ET will be stretched with shuttle main engines on it. The crew capsule will sit right at the top. Interesting times ahead.

A pity that Ares V was cancelled. Was going to be 188 tonnes to LEO.

I believe that the heaviest SLS viariant will do around 140 tonnes to LEO, but crucially, will have a shorter development timescale that Ares V had.

The biggest joke of the lot though is Ares I. I have no idea why NASA felt the need to develope the stick. It looks even more stupid considering the progress Space X have made with the Falcon.


Space X have also come out saying, that if the Falcon 9 Heavy Lift is a success, the next move is to built a bigger engine and future rockets, including the Falcon X Heavy and Falcon XX. The heaviest proposed variant will do 140 tonnes to LEO.

namloc1980

Found this video of a press conference/demonstration of the Orion Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle held in KSC yesterday. Some nice information on the new vehicle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KDyezVYPBY

Unfortunately there was no announcement as expected on the new heavy lift rocket, the Space Launch System. Mandated by Congress in October 2010, the SLS is now already behind schedule. As it is (believed to be) a Shuttle derived design, and with STS industry effectively shutdown, the longer the delay in starting development, more delays will happen. This means that there is no rocket to actually launch the Orion capsule at present or for the foreseeable future. In addition there are no firm plans for tests flights of the Orion (the lack of a rocket is a major problem). Add to this the lack of an actual mission goal for the new vehicle and the prospect of a shrinking NASA budget, it is looking increasingly likely that NASA may not fly humans again this decade. Hope I'm wrong though!