Future of NASA planetary exploration

namloc1980

The great success of Curiosity might be the last time we see a mission like it led by NASA for decades to come. For the first time since the 1970's NASA has no large scale flagship planetary mission in the pipeline because of relentless cuts to the science budget. As it stands NASA has no plans to launch any planetary probe of any kind after 2016. The great programme that brought us Spirit & Opportunity and Cassini is in tatters. Earlier in the week Mitt Romney summed up the new reality for me when he said:

"You also just saw we just landed on Mars and took a good look at what's going on there. And I know the Chinese are planning on going to the moon, and I hope they have a good experience doing that. And I hope they stop in and take a look at our flag that was put there 43 years ago."

This smacks of an attitude that would have never have been considered in the US in the past...looking back at their best days while other nations move ahead. Even ESA has a much better planetary programme in the works than NASA.

Thoughts?

Indricotherium

Charles Bolden spoke in Dublin recently and said that anyone under thirty in the audience would see NASA put a man on Mars in their lifetime.

He seemed fairly optimistic about it.

He seemed to consider the likes of curiosity as proofs of concept on putting complex robots on mars in preparation for a manned base.

AugustusMinimus

Since Kennedy it seems as if the Republics try to increase NASA budgets and the Democrats seem to slash them.

I know one thing, Obama has really done a hatchet job at NASA.

Indricotherium

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Since Kennedy it seems as if the Republics try to increase NASA budgets and the Democrats seem to slash them.

I know one thing, Obama has really done a hatchet job at NASA.

In all fairness a second moon project was ridiculous posturing.

Better to focus on getting a mars mission right in preparation for going there.

As stated above its been done 50 years ago. Is there a good reason to put a man on the moon again?

Tomk1

I'ld say the next big mission is prep for a Mars reseach base/station like antarctica, USA/NASA can't do it on their own, so a joint mission between Nasa/Esa/Russia like the ISS, a Mars mission has to be long term, staying on the surface, setting up a base, not land plant a flag, take a few pics, n' never return, like the tourist visit to the moon, let china get a few holiday snap-shots on the moon & a moon-rock, then Richard Branson.

A mission like that needs a lot of planning and information, food/water, a safe landing/base zone, a err sp.spa.spaaceship -The right stuff clip. Apart from the technical/science challenges, unfortunately short-term politics is the biggest obstacle.

The one good thing Nasa has got right is somewhat returning to science.

Jawgap

I think when you look at all the missions recently (and certainly all the future ones) the idea of a wholly "American" mission or a wholly European, Chinese, Indian or Japanese one is just PR.

Might as well use Curiosity / MSL as an example - lifted on an American launch vehicle, driven upwards by a Russian rocket motor.

ChemCam is a French / US collaboration

The Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer instrument is Canadian

the Rover Environmental Monitoring Station is Spanish (with input from Finland)

The Dynamic Albedo of Neutrons exepriment is Russian

the Radiation Assessment Detector is a US / German collaboration

In other words 5 of the 11 instruments on board are from or involve other partner countries' agencies or universities.

The big question should be if the Finns and Spanish managed to get involved, how come Ireland can't? (that's a rhetorical question!)

Romney is scaremongering (like LBJ did) - I'm planning to go to the moon, it doesn't mean I'll get there:D (I'm also planning to get to Saturn too). I don't think the Chinese have the launchers capable of getting a crewed mission to and from the moon, nor are they publicising the development of such a vehicle - they're pretty much at the 'Gemini' stage.

I'd go so far as to suggest that a joint US / European / Russian mission will land on Mars before the Chinese get to the moon.

On a second point and in defence of Obama, it's Congress who have been gutting NASA - he (his administration) has been pretty active in defending certain selected programmes but some sacred cows such as the Ares / Constellation programme have been hit very hard, basically because of the amount of money involved - there's been some suggestions this was a tactical move to get NASA to bring those programmes under much tighter financial control.

I also think the idea of the US in decline is over-played - definitely they are not the force they were, but they're still leading the game.

namloc1980

Tomk1 wrote: »

I'ld say the next big mission is prep for a Mars reseach base/station like antarctica, USA/NASA can't do it on their own, so a joint mission between Nasa/Esa/Russia like the ISS

Jawgap wrote: »

I think when you look at all the missions recently (and certainly all the future ones) the idea of a wholly "American" mission or a wholly European, Chinese, Indian or Japanese one is just PR.

The reality though is that NASA can't even commit to joint missions let alone doing their own owns for the foreseeable future. They pulled out of the 2018 joint rover mission with ESA (Phase 1 of sample return) because of lack of money. ESA are now moving ahead with it with Russia supplying the launch vehicle. NASA have also pulled out of the joint mission to Jupiter's moons Europa and Ganymede in the early 2020's, but thankfully ESA are going ahead with their part of the mission.

Jawgap wrote: »

On a second point and in defence of Obama, it's Congress who have been gutting NASA

Obama's budget request for 2013 calls for a 20% cut in the planetary science budget which includes a 40% cut for Mars exploration link. The cuts are to pay for the way over budget JWST which is still 6 years from launch (nothing against the JWST but it's cost is phenomenal) and to pay for the SLS/Orion. So Obama is certainly at the forefront of gutting the budget.

Jawgap

I think you have to look at spending by NASA and spending on space.

The Bush administration were very unilateral in their view and didn't want international collaboration.

Obama's administration is more internationalist in their view, and they want commercial operators to play a much greater role in the exploration and exploitation of space.

the first two principles in their Space Policy are "Energize competitive domestic industries" and "Expand international cooperation."

The Guidelines in the policy also state at the very start that the US will "Purchase and use commercial space capabilities and services to the maximum practical extent....."

I'd suggest that they see NASA as doing the fundamental science and prerequisite engineering, but getting the private sector to build and fly the rockets.

While some NASA programmes were being gutted Obama was also asking Congress for an extra $6 billion (over 5 years) to support private companies developing commercial spacecraft capable of ferrying astronauts to and from the International Space Station.

It's a complicated area and there's a lot of horse trading to be done before the budget for FY2013. Also, the White House doesn't do this stuff behind closed doors, NASA themselves will have had a big hand in deciding what gets cut and what stays within parameters laid down by the administration - then they'd have to go defend their request before the relevant appropriations committee - anything that looked wobbly in terms of coming in on budget would be a good candidate to cut on the basis that it would struggle to get past Congress.

namloc1980

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd suggest that they see NASA as doing the fundamental science and prerequisite engineering, but getting the private sector to build and fly the rockets.

If that was the case it would be great but NASA is currently spending €3bn a year developing the Space Launch System and Orion, which is completely the opposite of what you would expect it to be doing if it wanted the private sector to develop the rocket and crew delivery capability. There is serious conflicts of interest going on in NASA and that's what happens when politicians make the decisions and they think they know best. NASA has an identity crisis and doesn't know whether it should be developing rockets, helping private companies to do that or whether it should be doing science. The issue is that it will end up doing none of these well.

Jawgap wrote: »

While some NASA programmes were being gutted Obama was also asking Congress for an extra $6 billion (over 5 years) to support private companies developing commercial spacecraft capable of ferrying astronauts to and from the International Space Station.

The problem is that the money for commercial space is not extra, it's money being taken from the science budget to pay private companies to develop capabilities.

AugustusMinimus

IMO, the development of SLS is a sign that NASA does't trust SpaceX to be able to provide them with a Super Heavy Lifter.

Plans for the Falcon X / Falcon X Heavy and Falcon XX are on the table. However, SpaceX still need to fully develope and launch the Falcon 9 Heavy first.

Jawgap

You can slice and dice the figures in any number of ways, but I think the budgetary changes have to be seen in the context of a shift in emphasis / strategy in US Space Policy - just because certain programmes are being cut doesn't mean NASA (and by extension space) is being relegated.

NASA's budget in absolute dollar terms was reduced in FY2012 by about 3.7% on FY2011.

As share of the total Federal Budget, the reduction was much closer to 10%. In terms of GDP and share of the Federal Budget, the Budget for NASA is back where it was in the late 50s

Adjusting for inflation, the reduction was 6%.

As a share of discretionary spending, the NASA budget is holding it's own.

The politics of all this in the Congress also have a significant impact. The Senate and HoR have majorly different views on what NASA should be doing and they impose their view through appropriations.

For example, the HoR wants NASA to narrow the current field of four manned spacecraft to a single "competitor." Orion is being built by Lockheed, and the HoR want NASA to contract Boeing to deliver the Commercial Crew vehicle. NASA don't want to pick their 'winner' just yet and have been side-stepping Federal Regulations on procurement by using the Space Acts. The HoR are putting the squeeze on by cutting funding further - if NASA won't spend it their way, they won't get it to spend:)

Myrddin

It's a pity oil hasn't been detected or found on another planet yet. The US could declare war on such a planet in the name of freedom & any amount of funding would be made available to control the oil reserves & preserve the peace.

:rolleyes:

But seriously, the glory days are well behind us. As much as I think its nothing but political grandstanding by Romley, it does kinda say a lot that ot was 43 years ago we stepped on the surface of another body.

Jawgap

EnterNow wrote: »

It's a pity oil hasn't been detected or found on another planet yet. The US could declare war on such a planet in the name of freedom & any amount of funding would be made available to control the oil reserves & preserve the peace.

:rolleyes:

But seriously, the glory days are well behind us. As much as I think its nothing but political grandstanding by Romley, it does kinda say a lot that ot was 43 years ago we stepped on the surface of another body.

have to disagree with you there - the really exciting stuff is yet to come!!!

You're right about the oil:D

In some surveys a significant percentage of the US public have expressed the belief that NASA is as well funded as the Dept of Defense

Myrddin

Jawgap wrote: »

have to disagree with you there - the really exciting stuff is yet to come!!!

I would love to think so, I really would. But I think it'll be a long long long time before the Apollo missions are matched for sheer accomplishment. The recent landing was exceptional, but it pales in comparison to the Apollo program.

You're right about the oil:D

Ah it was kinda tongue in cheek, I just brought it up because its a shame how NASA has effectively been culled, while the US military budget soars & soars without question. Thats even before I mention the Black Budget

In some surveys a significant percentage of the US public have expressed the belief that NASA is as well funded as the Dept of Defense

A lot of them also believe Elvis is still alive too, they're Americans, you have to take they're comments with a pinch of salt

Jawgap

EnterNow wrote: »

I would love to think so, I really would. But I think it'll be a long long long time before the Apollo missions are matched for sheer accomplishment. The recent landing was exceptional, but it pales in comparison to the Apollo program.

I hear banjo music when I look at that photo.......:)

Apollo was fantastic, and we can all pick our favourite superlative and add it, and crewed spaceflight is very 'sexy' but when you look at some of the other programmes and put them in the context of their time, there's plenty to be excited about. Maybe it's a different kind of excitement to that generated by the Apollo (and Shuttle) programmes, but it's still exciting!

If NASA dropped Curiorisity II on Mars tomorrow it would be a case of "so what - you've done that already" - in same vein if they repeated Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager, Viking etc it wouldn't be terribly exciting, but at the time they were done they were- like Curiosity - fabulous achievements and recognised as such. I'd say there's more to come.

The Planetary Science Decadal Survey has a lot of exciting objectives and potential missions listed - I know the majority are aspirational, but they are all do-able.

NASA's 'problem' is that it has to keep constantly out doing itself to keep the politicians and the public interested. The problem is not so much matching Apollo as exceeding it, and I'd agree they've no chance of doing that with the pittance (relative to Apollo) they are being given as a budget.

There are plenty of exciting projects to come, but perhaps we won't get them over the timeframe we'd like.

Myrddin

Jawgap wrote: »

NASA's 'problem' is that it has to keep constantly out doing itself to keep the politicians and the public interested. The problem is not so much matching Apollo as exceeding it, and I'd agree they've no chance of doing that with the pittance (relative to Apollo) they are being given as a budget.

There are plenty of exciting projects to come, but perhaps we won't get them over the timeframe we'd like.

Yep good points. The moon landings/Apollo set such a precedent, that it really did pose the question "where do we go next..."

Surpassing the achievements of the Apollos program was always gonna be a tough cookie. And we have had great scientific achievements in the days since. Mir, The Shuttle, Hubble, the ISS, Cassini off the top of my head. And I suppose its unfair to compare these to Apollo in a way because they're unmanned accomplishments. I suppose in hindsight, we have done very well in the last few decades.

But lately, we just seem to be going backwards due to budget cuts with is frustrating to say the least!

nokia69

EnterNow wrote: »

Yep good points. The moon landings/Apollo set such a precedent, that it really did pose the question "where do we go next..."

Surpassing the achievements of the Apollos program was always gonna be a tough cookie. And we have had great scientific achievements in the days since. Mir, The Shuttle, Hubble, the ISS, Cassini off the top of my head. And I suppose its unfair to compare these to Apollo in a way because they're unmanned accomplishments. I suppose in hindsight, we have done very well in the last few decades.

But lately, we just seem to be going backwards due to budget cuts with is frustrating to say the least!

I think we have been making big moves forward in the last few years

the best thing NASA ever did was put men on the moon, but the second best thing was ending the shuttle

now we have spaceX building their falcon heavy and working on a reuseable falcon 9

if they can make the falcon 9 reuseable then they will own space and getting to mars will be easy, it could be done for a few billion

but even if they fail on reuseable rockets, the falcon heavy will fly, a return to the moon will be possible with 2 falcon heavy launches

people think the US are falling behind in the space race, in fact they are moving far ahead

shizz

nokia69 wrote: »

if they can make the falcon 9 reuseable then they will own space and getting to mars will be easy, it could be done for a few billion

That will only make getting to LEO cheaper. It won't help in a mission to Mars apart from advances in technology.

nokia69

shizz wrote: »

That will only make getting to LEO cheaper. It won't help in a mission to Mars apart from advances in technology.

if you can get to LEO then you are half way to anywhere in the solar system

if they make the falcon 9 reuseable then it follows that the falcon heavy and all their other future rockets will also be reuseable, they may not have started to build it yet, but you can be sure that at some stage they will build a rocket bigger than the saturn V

if we have reuseable rockets then getting to LEO and beyond is easy

launch cost is the only thing that matters, everything else is a side show

AugustusMinimus

nokia69 wrote: »

if they make the falcon 9 reuseable then it follows that the falcon heavy and all their other future rockets will also be reuseable, they may not have started to build it yet, but you can be sure that at some stage they will build a rocket bigger than the saturn V

The Falcon XX if eventually built, will have the largest payload capacity of a rocket ever. I think even higher than what Ares V would have lifted.

shizz

nokia69 wrote: »

if you can get to LEO then you are half way to anywhere in the solar system

if they make the falcon 9 reuseable then it follows that the falcon heavy and all their other future rockets will also be reuseable, they may not have started to build it yet, but you can be sure that at some stage they will build a rocket bigger than the saturn V

if we have reuseable rockets then getting to LEO and beyond is easy

launch cost is the only thing that matters, everything else is a side show

Reusable rockets does not make getting to LEO any easier. It makes it cheaper and more affordable. To say that after having the ability "getting to Mars will be easy" is ridiculous. There's a lot more to do than get to LEO cheaper.

AugustusMinimus

Anyone give me a synopsis of how the whole mission would work ?

At a guess:

1. Super heavy lifter puts a habitable unit from earth onto the surface of Mars.
2. Super heavy lifter puts rocket fuel on the surface of Mars close to the habitable unit.
3. Optional launches for even more cargo to be put onto Martian surface. Fuel/food/water etc etc
4. Earth escape stage / crew / Mars lander launch with one or two launches from Earth.
5. Mars lander brings crew onto Martian surface.
6. Mars lander gets refueled from fuel place on surface from 2 above.
7. Crew docks with return stage and capsule in orbit and return to earth

Points 1 and 2 are going to be very tricky. Both will weigh and awful lot. You also have the issue of landing them very close together on the surface.

nokia69

shizz wrote: »

Reusable rockets does not make getting to LEO any easier. It makes it cheaper and more affordable. To say that after having the ability "getting to Mars will be easy" is ridiculous. There's a lot more to do than get to LEO cheaper.

why is it ridculous ?

if you have a reuseable rocket then the cost of putting people and hardware into orbit falls to the cost of rocket fuel, more or less

once that happens then getting to mars is easy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X#Technologies

you can build something like the nautilusx for less than 4billion, if we had a reuseable rocket then the cost falls even more

what more needs to be done than reduce launch costs ?

nokia69

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Anyone give me a synopsis of how the whole mission would work ?

At a guess:

1. Super heavy lifter puts a habitable unit from earth onto the surface of Mars.
2. Super heavy lifter puts rocket fuel on the surface of Mars close to the habitable unit.
3. Optional launches for even more cargo to be put onto Martian surface. Fuel/food/water etc etc
4. Earth escape stage / crew / Mars lander launch with one or two launches from Earth.
5. Mars lander brings crew onto Martian surface.
6. Mars lander gets refueled from fuel place on surface from 2 above.
7. Crew docks with return stage and capsule in orbit and return to earth

Points 1 and 2 are going to be very tricky. Both will weigh and awful lot. You also have the issue of landing them very close together on the surface.

yeah I thinks thats more or less the way it could work

but I think the first people who reach mars will stay, so 6 and 7 will not be needed

I think I read somewhere that 20 people could be sent to mars one way for the same price as sending 3 people on a return trip

shizz

nokia69 wrote: »

why is it ridculous ?

if you have a reuseable rocket then the cost of putting people and hardware into orbit falls to the cost of rocket fuel, more or less

once that happens then getting to mars is easy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus-X#Technologies

you can build something like the nautilusx for less than 4billion, if we had a reuseable rocket then the cost falls even more

what more needs to be done than reduce launch costs ?

The part in bold is the part you keep saying, which is ridiculous. The cost to get to orbit, which is a part of the problem is not the only one.

The biggest technology which needs to be improved up on and proven to be reliable is ISRU. Without that we have no hope of surviving on another planet. This technology not only has to be developed, it has to be rigorously tested to be made a critical part of the mission.

Another problem in our way is landing massive weights on another planet. Our knowledge on this has recently been improved via Curiosity, but if you think that's big imagine the weights we will have to land in order for humans to get there and live there safely.

Stepping back slightly in the frame of events involved with landing on Mars is the aerobrake system that would be used to slow the ship down up on Mars entry. The bigger the weight we are travelling with, the bigger this needs to be and we haven't fully tested this technology.

So these are obviously a few problems we will have but the list goes on with other problems and problems which come from the solutions to the actual problems I've mentioned.

What I will say is that I do agree with you that a re-usable technology, such as the one space x is developing, will help these developments inadvertently.

AugustusMinimus

shizz wrote: »

Another problem in our way is landing massive weights on another planet. Our knowledge on this has recently been improved via Curiosity, but if you think that's big imagine the weights we will have to land in order for humans to get there and live there safely.

Landing such huge objects on Mars is by far the biggest problem IMO. Landing several of these objects within a close distance (prob less than a mile apart) is also going to be a massive issue.

nokia69

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Landing such huge objects on Mars is by far the biggest problem IMO. Landing several of these objects within a close distance (prob less than a mile apart) is also going to be a massive issue.

but its only hard because launch costs are so high

all the problems of space travel are easy to solve if launch costs fall low enough

shizz

nokia69 wrote: »

but its only hard because launch costs are so high

all the problems of space travel are easy to solve if launch costs fall low enough

What? No? It's hard because its hard to land a huge weight safely on another planet.

The technology to do so doesn't exist.

nokia69

shizz wrote: »

What? No? It's hard because its hard to land a huge weight safely on another planet.

The technology to do so doesn't exist.

they would use rockets

bigger rockets + more fuel = more weight landed on the surface of Mars or the moon ect

AugustusMinimus

nokia69 wrote: »

they would use rockets

bigger rockets + more fuel = more weight landed on the surface of Mars or the moon ect

It's not nearly as simple as you are making out.

Having big enough launch systems to launch from earth isn't the problem at all. Several Super Heavy lift rockets have already been developed and have been proven to work (Saturn V, Energia etc).

In this case, it just takes some cash to develope a new Super Heavy lift system. Technically, this isn't a huge issue, more a matter of money.


Developing a system to land huge habitation units, Mars to Mars orbit stage and to do this without a very small landing radius is an immense engineering task. By far the hardest part of any Mars mission IMO.

Doing a Mars or Venus flyby (IE, no landing) was deemed quite possible in the 1970s with Apollo architecture.

nokia69

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

It's not nearly as simple as you are making out.

Having big enough launch systems to launch from earth isn't the problem at all. Several Super Heavy lift rockets have already been developed and have been proven to work (Saturn V, Energia etc).

In this case, it just takes some cash to develope a new Super Heavy lift system. Technically, this isn't a huge issue, more a matter of money.


Developing a system to land huge habitation units, Mars to Mars orbit stage and to do this without a very small landing radius is an immense engineering task. By far the hardest part of any Mars mission IMO.

Doing a Mars or Venus flyby (IE, no landing) was deemed quite possible in the 1970s with Apollo architecture.

yeah thats all true, a mars/venus flyby is easy and would be possible with a falcon heavy launch

JPL seem to be getting better at landing on mars with each mission, so it looks to me like they could land huge habitation units on mars if they needed to, I suppose it all depends on how small you need the landing radius

namloc1980

nokia69 wrote: »

yeah thats all true, a mars/venus flyby is easy and would be possible with a falcon heavy launch

Falcon Heavy will be able to put a max of 14,000 kg on a trip to Mars. NASA's new Orion spacecraft has a total mass of nearly 30,000 kg including fuel and service module - not to mention all the supplies a crew would need to keep them going, so it would not be possible to do with a Falcon heavy launch.

nokia69 wrote: »

JPL seem to be getting better at landing on mars with each mission, so it looks to me like they could land huge habitation units on mars if they needed to, I suppose it all depends on how small you need the landing radius

Landing huge habitation units is not at all comparable to what JPL have been doing with their probes recently. It's extremely difficult to do. I don't understand how you think this is all easy....if it were easy, it would have already been done.

Capt'n Midnight

EnterNow wrote: »

It's a pity oil hasn't been detected or found on another planet yet.

http://www.space.com/4968-titan-oil-earth.html :P

Saturn's smoggy moon Titan has hundreds of times more natural gas and other liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth

Capt'n Midnight

namloc1980 wrote: »

If that was the case it would be great but NASA is currently spending €3bn a year developing the Space Launch System and Orion, which is completely the opposite of what you would expect it to be doing if it wanted the private sector to develop the rocket and crew delivery capability.

€3b per year

to reinvent the Saturn IV

The plans exist. All patents have expired on it - so can't anyone build it now ? There are significant weight savings to be made because of better materials and lighter electronics without having to redesign the entire craft. Digitise the existing drawing do a CAD analysis and use modern substitutes for older material, but only where a redesign isn't needed. Use modern construction techniques like laser cutting and welding instead of riveting.
The aim is to reduce construction costs first, complexity second and weight third.

You now have a big rocket that uses cheap fuel

Weight isn't a bad thing - over-engineering means it may be safer. And rocket fuel is cheaper than a complex part that been engineered to the nth and is under max stress.





Meanwhile the Americans still hope that Dragon or similar will launch for €50 instead of €70m for Soyuz. Even if the figures are true then to repay the billion or so development you're going to need at least 50 flights. Add in the billion being given to develop a capsule, add in the €500 million for a recent launch tower and even if they save €20 per flight (which they won't) the break even point is now 150 flights

The Americans have a saying "if it works it's obsolete."


Far too much emphasis on designing new launch systems that are slightly more efficient than previous ones. Given the number of test firings needed there aren't any real savings in fuel for more efficient designs BTW.



http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/08/nasa-picks-boeing-sierra-nevada-and-spacex-for-commercial-crew/

NASA announced the two and a half winners of the third Commercial Crew development round this morning. The winners were SpaceX ($440M), Boeing ($460M) and Sierra Nevada Corporation ($212.5M), although those allocations are subject to Congressional approval.

Look at ESA - instead of developing a new launcher they are now launching Soyuz from Guiana. €400m investment in the launch pad and facilities and you're good to go. Oh and Soyuz is man rated.

AugustusMinimus

namloc1980 wrote: »

Falcon Heavy will be able to put a max of 14,000 kg on a trip to Mars. NASA's new Orion spacecraft has a total mass of nearly 30,000 kg including fuel and service module - not to mention all the supplies a crew would need to keep them going, so it would not be possible to do with a Falcon heavy launch.

For a Mars or Venus flyby, you'll prob be talking about 2 SLS launches. I suspect that a Mars or Venus habitation unit would weight more than 100,000 kg. Possibly more.

namloc1980 wrote: »

Landing huge habitation units is not at all comparable to what JPL have been doing with their probes recently. It's extremely difficult to do. I don't understand how you think this is all easy....if it were easy, it would have already been done.

Indeed. Big difference between landing a 1,000 kg rover and a 50,000kg habitation unit.

AugustusMinimus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

€3b per year

to reinvent the Saturn IV

The plans exist. All patents have expired on it - so can't anyone build it now ? There are significant weight savings to be made because of better materials and lighter electronics without having to redesign the entire craft. Digitise the existing drawing do a CAD analysis and use modern substitutes for older material, but only where a redesign isn't needed. Use modern construction techniques like laser cutting and welding instead of riveting.
The aim is to reduce construction costs first, complexity second and weight third.

You now have a big rocket that uses cheap fuel

Weight isn't a bad thing - over-engineering means it may be safer. And rocket fuel is cheaper than a complex part that been engineered to the nth and is under max stress.





Meanwhile the Americans still hope that Dragon or similar will launch for €50 instead of €70m for Soyuz. Even if the figures are true then to repay the billion or so development you're going to need at least 50 flights. Add in the billion being given to develop a capsule, add in the €500 million for a recent launch tower and even if they save €20 per flight (which they won't) the break even point is now 150 flights

The Americans have a saying "if it works it's obsolete."


Far too much emphasis on designing new launch systems that are slightly more efficient than previous ones. Given the number of test firings needed there aren't any real savings in fuel for more efficient designs BTW.



http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/08/nasa-picks-boeing-sierra-nevada-and-spacex-for-commercial-crew/





Look at ESA - instead of developing a new launcher they are now launching Soyuz from Guiana. €400m investment in the launch pad and facilities and you're good to go. Oh and Soyuz is man rated.

The whole point of Commerical Development though is to foster a competitive space industry in the united states. There of course will be an initial outlay for design and testing, but the hope is to gradually get the cost to LEO down to a level where private industry can take over this role from government.

Depending on Soyuz indefinately is not something the US wants to do. Congress firmly wants a US launcher, build and designed in the US, supporting US jobs.

All this development open's up some interesting opportunites. Would there be an issue for instance in ESA buying a number of Dream Chasers eventually and launching them atop a man rated Ariane 5 ?

nokia69

namloc1980 wrote: »

Falcon Heavy will be able to put a max of 14,000 kg on a trip to Mars. NASA's new Orion spacecraft has a total mass of nearly 30,000 kg including fuel and service module - not to mention all the supplies a crew would need to keep them going, so it would not be possible to do with a Falcon heavy launch.



Landing huge habitation units is not at all comparable to what JPL have been doing with their probes recently. It's extremely difficult to do. I don't understand how you think this is all easy....if it were easy, it would have already been done.

the orion spacecraft is not what I was thinking of, it would be better to use a bigelow module and a space x dragon capsule

there was a NASA plan to do a mars/venus flyby as far as I know it was to be done with one saturn V launch, but with lighter modern materials it may be possible with a falcon heavy

if we had reuseable rockets, then we can build fuel depots in space this makes landing large payloads to mars possible

its only easy if we have reuseable launchers

Capt'n Midnight

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

The whole point of Commerical Development though is to foster a competitive space industry in the united states. There of course will be an initial outlay for design and testing, but the hope is to gradually get the cost to LEO down to a level where private industry can take over this role from government.

To get cheap you need high volume production of a standard design.

Look at aircraft - they cost a similar amount.

Even though Boeing make thousands and thousands of aircraft do start from scratch on each new generation ?
Or do today's 737's still use the same fuselage sections as the 707 did back in 1957 ?

It's a process of continuous development. New materials get used like the 787 compared to the 767. Ocassionally a new aircraft is built like the 747, 767 and the 777 but only when there is proven market demand. Otherwise it's a case of stretching and playing musical engines 707 727 737 757. Airbus do the same.

A Boeing 787 is very similar to a 707 , different number of engines and a different diameter fuselage but otherwise the overall arrangement is the same because the basics of physics hasn't changed. It's the same with rocketry. Except that rocket engines haven't gotten more efficient

You won't get high volume if you keep wiping the slate clean and starting again every time you get a mature system debugged.


And how many designs will be needed before they learn "if it ain't broke don't fix it"

Depending on Soyuz indefinately is not something the US wants to do. Congress firmly wants a US launcher, build and designed in the US, supporting US jobs.

Pork barrelling.

aren't some of the most successful US launchers using Russian engines that are more efficient because they use the turbo pump output ?

All this development open's up some interesting opportunites. Would there be an issue for instance in ESA buying a number of Dream Chasers eventually and launching them atop a man rated Ariane 5 ?

chasing dreams more likely

ESA have Souyz so no major mods needed.
Maybe ESA could dust off Hermes, or look at the Russian Klipper

Given the US history on big aerospace/defence projects it's not a good idea to bet on them. On time, on budget, working. Pick two. Pick one - maybe.


If you want to get to orbit one theory says you need to build reusable rockets - but that's where the need to have high volume bites you every time. Lots of external tanks - result they dropped in weight from over 35 tonnes to 27.5 tonnes, and most of that difference translated into payload to orbit.


The shuttles and solid rocket boosters were reusable and didn't show as much improvement. And reusable SRB's cost one shuttle. I've seen figures of $23 million per srb or segment and a figure of $500m for the annual cost of SRB refurbishing operation. Shuttle cost vastly more inefficient than reusable rockets because you had to drag a shuttle and external tank to orbit in addition to your payload.

Capt'n Midnight

IMHO the ISS is a money pit.
US spending on launcher development is another money pit.

Both could have been achieved at 1/10 the cost.

ISS is 5 Saturn IV's. If you used a wet lab design then maybe 4.


For human flight using the Hydrogen storage tanks of the final stage as quarters seems like a no brainer esp on a mars trip.



If you want cheap launchers then invest in superguns
invest in railguns
and inclined ramps

invest in ways to transfer energy from the ground to the spacecraft
so lasers and microwaves can be used to heat the working fluid


Stop giving US companies huge pots of money to build something that is an incremental improvement on what the Soviets built 12 years after WWII


Invest in Ion drives to get from LEO
They may not be quite as efficient as stuff that's on the drawing board.
But they have been used since 1971 and have a 100% reliability record.

Human crew can pop up to the assembled craft later on


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator
If going to the moon consider a tether - because the materials are strong enough now, and while it will take bleedin ages , after the initial investment you will save half the mass
better still do a loop - you can use moon rock to make the counterweight




some more Beagle type missions - ie. cheap science

AugustusMinimus

Really like the ideas on how the Mars lander and Mars to Mars orbit vehicle will work.

This plan would have taken 7 Ares V launches. How many SLS launches will it take :eek:

NASA Space Flight explanation of video: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/01/sls-exploration-roadmap-pointing-dual-mars-approach/