Space Shuttle Atlantis launches for the final time...

[Cornholio]

umm, yes, we do.

the Boeing Delta IV Heavy, first launched in 2004, could be used for lunar missions.

Delta IV Heavy, payload to LEO: 25,800 kg
Saturn V, payload to LEO: 119,000 kg

The Aerospace Corporation was asked by NASA three times, in 2005, 2008 and 2009, to assess technical feasibility and cost of human-rating an EELV. Two latter assessments addressed the possibility of replacing the Ares I with Delta IV Heavy. The reports indicate that the Delta IV Heavy meets ISS and lunar target performance requirements.

Link

The existing Delta IV upper stage can be further upgraded to provide additional potentially important capabilities that enable an affordable and sustainable implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration (Figure 9). Boeing is currently evaluating modifications to the Delta IV upper stage for use as a Trans-Lunar Injection (TLI) or In-Space Transportation (IST) stage, either as an upper stage or as an on-orbit asset, as described in the following section.

The Delta IV upper stage is a stepping stone to a TLI stage, and the TLI stage is a potential stepping stone to an array of other Exploration applications, including cryo depot, lunar landers, and even habitat modules. Further, Delta IV upper stages offer a low-risk, high-fidelity platform for demonstrating the required technology.

Link

 

[gturner]

umm, yes, we do.

the Boeing Delta IV Heavy, first launched in 2004, could be used for lunar missions.

Delta IV Heavy, payload to LEO: 25,800 kg
Saturn V, payload to LEO: 119,000 kg

Yes, but computers are lighter now, and we can crew it with midgets.

The problem I see with the idea of farming out manned exploration missions to the commercial sector is that there is only one customer (NASA), and NASA will pay whatever the asking price is or cancel the project. We were already using that system. To my mind, it's not really commercialization so much as rearranging a management chart so the administration can point fingers at evil capitalists instead of loyal government workers.

If it was truly commercial and Boeing or some other aerospace giant decided to mine an asteroid for a trillion dollars worth of nickel and platinum, I'm sure the government would be first in line to take complete control of the operation and offer the corporate executives a small finders fee, as long as they kicked it back in the form of campaign donations.

The near-term requirement is for a capsule that can beat the capabilities of Soyuz and Apollo and do it with a larger crew. To do this requires something like a Saturn IB, a Delta IV heavy, an Atlas V heavy, or the Ares. All of these options are of course rehashed designs from the 60's and 70's. The decision to go commercial is more of a decision to ride an Atlas or Delta instead of a Space Shuttle SRB. That might be a good decision, but it certainly ups the complexity of the launch system (solids are so simple).

One of the major problems I have with ruling out lunar missions is that it's such a great shakedown run. At little extra cost (and little delta-V) you can find out how your radiation shielding is working, how your orbital insertion programs and equipment are working, how your docking procedures are working, etc. It can also provide much more data on our nearest neighbor, build crew confidence and experience, give the public something to focus on during the long run up to a Mars mission, and possibly most important, get everyone thinking about the problems of a surface that requires radiation shielding for any long term (more than a week) stay.

 

[Lindley]

That's the thinking that doomed the Apollo program.

With his approach, after the Mars mission is over, we'd have a moon base, orbital and L4/L5 manufacturing, and all sorts of infrastructure in space.

With the quicker and more logical approach, after the Mars mission is over, all we've got are a bunch of DVDs of guys bouncing around on Mars and a rusting launch complex.

Flexible path is all about building and retaining infrastructure in space. It simply assumes that it will be much easier to put that infrastructure in orbit rather than on a planetary surface.

Once the space infrastructure is there, then you add on to it by dipping down and adding facilities where the resources are. It may be much easier to mine asteroids than the lunar surface, actually.

One of the major problems I have with ruling out lunar missions is that it's such a great shakedown run.

From an engineering perspective, yes. And maybe it will be used that way. But the equipment needs to be designed beyond a mere lunar target.

 

[Cornholio]

umm, yes, we do.

the Boeing Delta IV Heavy, first launched in 2004, could be used for lunar missions.

Delta IV Heavy, payload to LEO: 25,800 kg
Saturn V, payload to LEO: 119,000 kg

Yes, but computers are lighter now, and we can crew it with midgets.

yeah, midgets might work.

seriously though, as gturner stated, computers are lighter.

all of our current technology is much more compact than anything that we had during Apollo, and we have stronger, lighter materials to build with these days.

also, if sojourner and Canadave would check the second link I posted, they'd see that the Delta IV Heavy can be configured with additional solid rocket boosters and upper stage engines which could effectively double the performance figures they've posted.

Flexible path is all about building and retaining infrastructure in space. It simply assumes that it will be much easier to put that infrastructure in orbit rather than on a planetary surface.

I'm not sayin' we need to build Space Station Alpha from Space:1999 (what an awful show that was), but constructing a station, or stations, in Lunar orbit is something we could start almost immediately, and something that we should've already been working on.

Once the space infrastructure is there, then you add on to it by dipping down and adding facilities where the resources are. It may be much easier to mine asteroids than the lunar surface, actually.

I suppose that might be possible, except that most asteroids are beyond Mars. the Moon is within our reach now. why wait?

But the equipment needs to be designed beyond a mere lunar target.

you're stating the obvious here.

of course we're going to need something to get from the Moon to further points. but I'll ask again: why wait to get started? we can take the first step now, and start building the infrastructure needed to get beyond the Moon. designing and testing the equipment to take us further can take place concurrently.

 

[sojourner]

also, if sojourner and Canadave would check the second link I posted, they'd see that the Delta IV Heavy can be configured with additional solid rocket boosters and upper stage engines which could effectively double the performance figures they've posted.

Wow! Double? 51,600kg to leo? That's still far short of an HLV.

And the magic words in your quotes is "stepping stone", which translates to "hasn't been built or designed yet". In it's current form Delta IV Heavy is the rocket they should have gone with instead of wasting money on Ares I. As a heavy lifter Delta and Atlas can both be evolved to get the job done. The question is whether that is a the best path or do we go with Direct/Jupiter or a clean sheet design? I for one favor Direct/jupiter based on it's payload capacity, short term development, and use of existing assets.

Another idea I liked was Boeing's "ACES" proposal. Basically, it eschewed the need for an HLV by using large numbers of medium sized launchers with a common upper stage. This upper stage, "ACES", had several roles. It was at it's basest a fuel depot, but it also can function as a TLI stage and they had a modified version that functioned as a lunar lander. Commonality in design lead to reductions in production cost. You could launch many of these and build up an infrastructure of fuel depots at convenient locations such as EML1, LEO and where ever else you might need to go.

 

[T'Girl]

Constellation as a program was underfunded, over budget, poorly engineered and behind schedule.

(Snide comment about it being a government project)

A) Build HLV with capacity for manned flights to Mars
B) Manned orbital flight of Mars
C) Mars landing

Your approach:

A) Rebuild HLV for Moon landing
B) Build base on Moon, requiring either very large HLVs or many, many trips
C) Build rocket-assembly facility on the Moon
D) Design and build Mars lander... on the Moon
E) Mars landing

Which seems like a quicker and more logical approach?

The long range practical approach would to do all these things in turn (except build a rocket-assembly facility on the Moon).

The both practical and logical concept would be to get private enterprise to take much of this over, as much as possible cut the government out of the loop. NASA makes rude noises about space tourism, but that is actual a step in the right direction. Japanese space hotels too. The colonization and industrialization of space most likely won't happen while the government (any government) is running the show. Once cost per pound to LEO come down (if it ever does) it will become profitable to invest in space, don't mean to be crass, but the human race will move off this planet just as soon as someone figures a way to make money off us doing it.

We colonize Mars the day after someone starts selling building lots on the surface.

But the equipment needs to be designed beyond a mere lunar target.

The answer to that would be to build a lander that can land on the surface of Mars and then first land it on the surface of the Moon. This way we're not paying to design and manufacture two different spacecraft, obviously anything that can land on Mars can also land on the Moon. Landing on the Moon would be a proof of concept thing, little bit of public relations, NASA can be ready for a Moon landing long before the whole Mars mission is ready.

And am I the only one here who is wistful for the Delta Clipper?

 

[RJDiogenes]

It is with a mixture of sadness and relief-- and trepidation-- that I watch the end of the Shuttle Era. Sadness because it was definitely an amazing vehicle that accomplished a lot, and relief because it scares the hell out of me every time it launches and lands; I don't trust it and I really don't want to see any more dead Astronauts. And trepidation because ignorant and short-sighted politicians have left us with pretty much nothing for a manned Space Program. If you had told me in 1969, as I watched Neil Armstrong walk on the Moon, that 2010 would see us Earthbound, away from the Moon for over 35 years, nowhere near Mars and with nothing in Space but a clunky primitive Space Station, I never would have believed it. If the bureaucrats would stop overthinking the plumbing, they'd know that we have had the technology to be living on the Moon and Mars for decades; NASA is like the Health Care industry and Hollywood-- they make stuff cost way more than it needs to.

Our best hope now is the entrepreneurs.

 

[Squiggy]

Yes, but computers are lighter now, and we can crew it with midgets.

Sadly, the First Dwarf Brigade/Space Division was disbanded after Vietnam. Thank you President Carter.

 

[Cornholio]

also, if sojourner and Canadave would check the second link I posted, they'd see that the Delta IV Heavy can be configured with additional solid rocket boosters and upper stage engines which could effectively double the performance figures they've posted.

Wow! Double? 51,600kg to leo? That's still far short of an HLV.

And the magic words in your quotes is "stepping stone", which translates to "hasn't been built or designed yet". In it's current form Delta IV Heavy is the rocket they should have gone with instead of wasting money on Ares I. As a heavy lifter Delta and Atlas can both be evolved to get the job done. The question is whether that is a the best path or do we go with Direct/Jupiter or a clean sheet design? I for one favor Direct/jupiter based on it's payload capacity, short term development, and use of existing assets.

yeah, I'd agree the Direct/Jupiter wouldn't be a bad idea either, but I'm definitely opposed to starting with a clean sheet. we've wasted enough time and money already.

Another idea I liked was Boeing's "ACES" proposal. Basically, it eschewed the need for an HLV by using large numbers of medium sized launchers with a common upper stage. This upper stage, "ACES", had several roles. It was at it's basest a fuel depot, but it also can function as a TLI stage and they had a modified version that functioned as a lunar lander. Commonality in design lead to reductions in production cost. You could launch many of these and build up an infrastructure of fuel depots at convenient locations such as EML1, LEO and where ever else you might need to go.

sounds like a good idea, but also sounds very similar to what I'd propose doing with the Delta IV Heavy. got any links to info about this? all I can turn up in a quick google search for "Boeing ACES" has to do with Boeing's work with the Army on their Future Combat Systems.

And am I the only one here who is wistful for the Delta Clipper?

now there's a blast from the past. another good project that was killed. wouldn't get us to the Moon or beyond, but would've been a good interim solution to replace the shuttle.

If you had told me in 1969, as I watched Neil Armstrong walk on the Moon, that 2010 would see us Earthbound, away from the Moon for over 35 years, nowhere near Mars and with nothing in Space but a clunky primitive Space Station, I never would have believed it.

well said! I really hate to see our manned space program stagnate.

If the bureaucrats would stop overthinking the plumbing, they'd know that we have had the technology to be living on the Moon and Mars for decades; NASA is like the Health Care industry and Hollywood-- they make stuff cost way more than it needs to.

yeah, if the government hadn't killed Apollo and kept meddling with NASA, we probably would have people livin' on the Moon now.

Our best hope now is the entrepreneurs.

unfortunately they've been kept out space until just a couple of years ago.

 

[gturner]

So, what are everyone's preferences for heavy lift vehicle development?

Personally, I like a LOX/RP-1 first stage and the Russian idea of one turbopump feeding multiple chambers, as used on the RD-170 and RD-180. The Russians went with that design because they had problems with combustion instability in larger chambers, whereas we successfully solved that in the Saturn V's F-1 engines.

The uprated F-1A has about 2 million pounds of thrust, slightly more than the RD-170, and does it with one combustion chamber. Running a cluster of F-1 chambers gets us back into the Nova/Saturn V range. As a cost saving measure I would ditch the turbopump entirely and go with a Flowmetrics pistonless pump, which could reduce the engine costs by a factor of 10 (The pump only has 10 moving parts).

 

[sojourner]

sounds like a good idea, but also sounds very similar to what I'd propose doing with the Delta IV Heavy. got any links to info about this? all I can turn up in a quick google search for "Boeing ACES" has to do with Boeing's work with the Army on their Future Combat Systems.

My bad, it was proposed by ULA, not Boeing. Heres a great article about it. You'll like it because they also recommend using an evolved Delta IV.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009...ng-solution-via-eelv-exploration-master-plan/

 

[gturner]

Are you sure we wouldn't be better off with Orion riding the bottle rocket?

Why do they call it a Crew Exploration Vehicle, anyway? We're not exploring the crew (unless she's really hot and into zero-G porn). Shouldn't it be a Space Exploration Vehicle?

 

[Zulu Romeo]

Why do they call it a Crew Exploration Vehicle, anyway? We're not exploring the crew (unless she's really hot and into zero-G porn). Shouldn't it be a Space Exploration Vehicle?

They've been watching too much "Defying Gravity" perhaps.

 

[Cornholio]

So, what are everyone's preferences for heavy lift vehicle development?

Personally, I like a LOX/RP-1 first stage and the Russian idea of one turbopump feeding multiple chambers, as used on the RD-170 and RD-180. The Russians went with that design because they had problems with combustion instability in larger chambers, whereas we successfully solved that in the Saturn V's F-1 engines.

The uprated F-1A has about 2 million pounds of thrust, slightly more than the RD-170, and does it with one combustion chamber. Running a cluster of F-1 chambers gets us back into the Nova/Saturn V range. As a cost saving measure I would ditch the turbopump entirely and go with a Flowmetrics pistonless pump, which could reduce the engine costs by a factor of 10 (The pump only has 10 moving parts).

my preference would be to adapt existing technology where possible, rather than develop something entirely new.

there's something real familiar sounding about the F-1A designation. is it in use now?

and as far as the Flowmetrics pump idea, I'm all for anything that will reduce costs that much, provided it's reliable and relatively safe. looks like a pretty interesting piece of technology.

sounds like a good idea, but also sounds very similar to what I'd propose doing with the Delta IV Heavy. got any links to info about this? all I can turn up in a quick google search for "Boeing ACES" has to do with Boeing's work with the Army on their Future Combat Systems.

My bad, it was proposed by ULA, not Boeing. Heres a great article about it. You'll like it because they also recommend using an evolved Delta IV.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009...ng-solution-via-eelv-exploration-master-plan/

hell farkin' yeah! I'm behind this 100%. I know I've read about this in the past, just didn't remember the 'ACES' program name. probably why I'm so high on the Delta IV Heavy, and why it sounded so familiar when you mentioned it in an earlier post. thanks for the link.

Are you sure we wouldn't be better off with Orion riding the bottle rocket?

Why do they call it a Crew Exploration Vehicle, anyway? We're not exploring the crew (unless she's really hot and into zero-G porn). Shouldn't it be a Space Exploration Vehicle?

by "bottle rocket" are you referring to the Ares I?

I think I've seen the phrase 'Space Exploration Vehicle' used before.

as far as I know, the Orion is called the 'Crew Exploration Vehicle' 'cause the crew uses it to explore.

 

[sojourner]

Are you sure we wouldn't be better off with Orion riding the bottle rocket?

Why do they call it a Crew Exploration Vehicle, anyway? We're not exploring the crew (unless she's really hot and into zero-G porn). Shouldn't it be a Space Exploration Vehicle?

If by "the bottle rocket" you mean ARES I, no. ARES I has repeatedly lost payload capacity which in turn has forced Orion to lose capability in order to save weight. Originally Orion was going to be capable of touching down on land, be reusable, and have much longer independent function. It most recently lost the onboard toilet due to weight reduction needs.

ARES I should have been abandoned the minute it started affecting negatively the vehicle it was intended to carry.

 

[Lindley]

designing and testing the equipment to take us further can take place concurrently.

Ideally, yes, but having two concurrent efforts tends to require twice the price. NASA has gotten a funding increase, sure, but they're not exactly rolling in dough.

 

[Lindley]

(unless she's really hot and into zero-G porn)

Hey, funding!

 

[Cornholio]

designing and testing the equipment to take us further can take place concurrently.

Ideally, yes, but having two concurrent efforts tends to require twice the price. NASA has gotten a funding increase, sure, but they're not exactly rolling in dough.

what they need to do is get Donna Shirley back. She was manager of NASA's Mars Explorer Program in the early 90's. She is responsible for making the Sojourner Mars Rover project a success. when everyone else was ready to give up because there was only $25 million in the budget, she came up with the idea to save the mission.

 

[Squiggy]

Since this thread has gone off from it's Atlantis theme and is now into the realm of...well...whatever the hell NASA is going to do next, I think this is a fine time to regale you all of my encounter with NBC's Jay Barbree.

In case you don't know who he is...look him up.

So, we're at the press site as we are for every launch (ho-hum)...but one thing we have to do now is get interviews from whoever regarding the end of the shuttle program. So we grab a couple of astronauts, some techs, and some press. About 2 hours after the launch, our producer walks up with Jay...seeing as how he's been at Kennedy since before there was a Kennedy, I'm sure he'd have the best insight about the shuttle and...stuff.

Nope. 40 minutes of ranting about how what's going on now is stupid and how the previous administration was stupid to not fund Constellation and how the previous 3 administrations had become so risk-adverse that people stopped caring about NASA and how the shuttle was stupid to begin with. Then he talked about shooting people and hiding the bodies in a barn and he didn't give two shits about being caught because he's old and will die soon.

It. Was. EPIC. So awesome.

We can't use ANY of it.

 

[gturner]

Are you sure we wouldn't be better off with Orion riding the bottle rocket?

Why do they call it a Crew Exploration Vehicle, anyway? We're not exploring the crew (unless she's really hot and into zero-G porn). Shouldn't it be a Space Exploration Vehicle?

If by "the bottle rocket" you mean ARES I, no. ARES I has repeatedly lost payload capacity which in turn has forced Orion to lose capability in order to save weight. Originally Orion was going to be capable of touching down on land, be reusable, and have much longer independent function. It most recently lost the onboard toilet due to weight reduction needs.

ARES I should have been abandoned the minute it started affecting negatively the vehicle it was intended to carry.

First off, all spacecraft are capable of touching down on land. It's just that some can't be reused afterwards, though in most cases they can be recycled.

Second, there's no reason a spacecraft needs a toilet. We send people up to do sh*t, not to just sh*t. Technology has come a long way, so now we can use 3M semi-adhesives from Post-It notes to tape a sandwich baggy to a butt, preserving those sensitive hairs.

Third, ARES can easily be uprated by attaching SRB's to it, assuming that SRB's can be man rated. The jury is still out on that.