The future of Manned Spaceflight

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!

Discodog

All we need is a major security threat to satellites or a big problem with the ISS. The decision to dump the Shuttle before a replacement is available could be the biggest mistake that the US has made in spaceflight.

China will have a huge opportunity to steal a march on NASA. I keep wondering how Kennedy would be feeling at the idea that the world is now totally dependant on the Russians.

namloc1980

Unfortunately there are powerful political elements in the US who are determined to essentially eliminate NASA. We can see this is being done in a systematic manner:
- eliminate manned spaceflight capability,
- delay and obstruct a replacement manned capability,
- cancel big ticket science programs. The first phase of a Mars sample return mission set for 2018 has been cancelled. We also saw this week that politicians are now taking aim at the JWST.
- NASA also has very few unmanned planetary missions currently in development.

Meanwhile China has set out a very clear path for it's manned program and are due to launch their own mini space station within a year to be followed by a much larger station with the ultimate goal being a moon base. I wish them the best of luck, they have the pioneering spirit that is little more than a distant memory in America.

AugustusMinimus

namloc1980 wrote: »

Meanwhile China has set out a very clear path for it's manned program and are due to launch their own mini space station within a year to be followed by a much larger station with the ultimate goal being a moon base. I wish them the best of luck, they have the pioneering spirit that is little more than a distant memory in America.

In addition, the Russian Space budget is increasing at a huge rate. The budget doubled from 2009 to 2011. Putin/Medved want Russia to look good on the world stage and the Russian space programme is part of this.

From what I can tell, we need the Americans to be completely humiliated. I don't care who does it, but it needs to happen.

Discodog

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

From what I can tell, we need the Americans to be completely humiliated. I don't care who does it, but it needs to happen.

It will be security that forces them back into space. If the Chinese set up a space station or a moon base it will worry the US defence dept. The military/homeland security have huge influence. But there is a justifiable reasoning that NASA is this huge behemoth & that private enterprise might do better.

It amazing when you look back at predictions made 50 years ago about where we would be today - it feels like we are going backwards !. Great technological advances like Apollo, the Shuttle, Concorde have all been retired with no replacement - a car of today bears remarkable similarities to a car from the 30's.

There's a little bit of conspiracy in me that wonders if the US military already have a manned orbiter !.

Capt'n Midnight

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

From what I can tell, we need the Americans to be completely humiliated. I don't care who does it, but it needs to happen.

The US is the wrong model to follow

"if it works it's obsolete"

"we will build the most fuel efficient rocket" when fuel is about 2% of launch and development costs. Development for most US systems uses more resources than launching - there are NO nett savings compared to big dumb boosters by redesining.

"we will add redudancy and backup systems if there is a problem" when the Russians just overengineer by using thicker metal (hint rugged vehicles take unexpected knocks better than fragile ones, Atlas was pressurised to stop it collapsing under it's own empty weight, when Vostok was being unloaded off a ship it was only supported at the ends and one of the workers was able to walk along the side to check the ropes.

Spaceflight is still at the stage where reliability and innovation don't always go hand in hand

Discodog

Exactly & that principle goes way back in Russian engineering. I can remember the almost ridicule that came from NASA regarding Mir & the early Russian designs.

namloc1980

More bad news from Washington about NASAs future. In a hearing in Congress NASA administrator Bolden stated that the new rocket SLS wouldn't be ready to carry humans until possibly early 2020s! Link

It's getting embarrassing at this stage. How the mighty have fallen!

Capt'n Midnight

namloc1980 wrote: »

It's getting embarrassing at this stage. How the mighty have fallen!

As embarassing as loosing Skylab because there wasn't a man rated launcher available ?

Skylab had the same pressurised volume as Mir 350m3

AugustusMinimus

namloc1980 wrote: »

More bad news from Washington about NASAs future. In a hearing in Congress NASA administrator Bolden stated that the new rocket SLS wouldn't be ready to carry humans until possibly early 2020s! Link

It's getting embarrassing at this stage. How the mighty have fallen!

SLS won't happen.

Expect it to be culled and replaced by SpaceX's new series of Falcon X rockets.

Their FalconXX design will be capable of putting 140 tonnes into LEO. Musk said it could be ready for cargo within 5 years.

Man rate a Falcon 9/Falcon 9 heavy for capsule launches and just dump SLS for what I care.


It really is amazing what Falcon X can achieve in terms of time and money while the likes of Boeing and Lockheed are burning through cash and taking twice as long. I wouldn't mind, but Boeing's division is formerly that of Rockwell which built the Saturn V and the Shuttle orbiter. It's essentially the most expieriened company in the world in terms of space vehicles.

AugustusMinimus

Just a little comparison of SpaceX's current lifters with their future ones.