So, Congress and the Senate each have their own ideas about what NASA should be doing, with Congress demanding the return of the Ares-V and the Senate going so far as to design their own "Nelson Rocket". The Senate is demanding that NASA build a rocket that uses the existing shuttle solid rocket boosters and launch pad, and that it be able to lift 70 to 100 tons to orbit. It is also insisting that NASA start on this next year.
Why? Is it merely to preserve the standing army currently employed in Shuttle launch? That standing army is the primary reason that launch costs for NASA do not go down. The Senate (led by Bill Nelson on this issue) are deliberately doing all they can to kill the space industry in the cradle, once again. It is a deliberate waste of taxpayer money in a transparent attempt to generate pork in Utah and Florida.
What possible requirement is there for such a lift capacity, when there are already commercial rockets capable of lifting 10 to 30 tons to orbit right now?
What would this lift capacity be used for? A 70 ton lift capacity is not enough to get people even as far as the moon in one launch. So, orbital rendezvous of multiple launches is going to be required to do anything useful beyond low earth orbit anyhow.
There is one thing that can be said for NASA's past 15 years with the otherwise-white-elephant International Space Station: the assembly of the station has generated an enormous amount of knowledge about rendezvous, assembly, and maintenance of large manned structures over a period of years in orbit. Orbital assembly is something NASA now has considerable experience doing.
What NASA hasn't done in more than 30 years of trying and tens of billions of dollars wasted is: build a new rocket that makes it all the way to low earth orbit.
So, once again, why not use existing commercial rockets and just have more launches, thus eliminating R&D costs and much of the operational costs. More launches means lower individual launch prices as the commercial provider can amortize fixed and sunk costs over more units sold. Going with the smaller, commercially available rockets like Delta IV, Atlas V, and Falcon 9 (and soon Taurus II) also means smaller teams required to launch any one rocket, another big cost savings.
Then NASA could use the billions that would otherwise go into heavy-lift shuttle-derived R&D and eventual operations a decade down the road into instead purchasing existing payload capacity right now.
It could also lead to a real multiplier effect, where NASA demand for launch services drives down prices to the point where other entities can start purchasing launches, thus attracting not only more customers to existing companies, but also venture capital to new companies involved in all aspects of space launch and low earth orbit operations.
NASA has already blazed the trail to low earth orbit. By taking advantage of the already available commercial option, NASA can continue to blaze the trail further, beyond low earth orbit, to the lunar poles and asteroids and beyond. They are creative people; they should be creating completely new capabilities rather than - at best- repeating old capabilities.
4 comments:
.
just a question, to ALL space and science journalists, bloggers, experts, etc...
could the "commercial space" REALLY replace the Space Shuttle???
or puts the $200 billion ISS under the serious risk to DIE soon?
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/072issdeath.html
some people are pro-Shuttle, others are against it, but ALL know the DETAILED Space Shuttle data
some people are pro-Ares1/5, others are against them, but ALL know the DETAILED Ares1/5 NASA studies
some people are pro-EELVs, others are against them, but ALL know the DETAILED Delta/Atlas/Ariane/etc. data and launches
well, now, some people are pro "commercial space", others are against it, but HOW they/we can be PRO or AGAINST it, if they/we STILL don't know the EXACT data and info of the "commercial" vehicles??????????
e.g. SpaceX hasn't given yet any detailed info and data about the Dragon
the specs available in the .pdf published on the SpaceX site aren't so clear
so, it's hard to evaluate this vehicle to know what it really can or can't do
these are the exact data we need to know from SpaceX about the Dragon:
- payload adapter mass ________
- empty service module mass ________
- propellants mass ________
- empty capsule mass ________
- ejected nose cone mass ________
- max LEO/ISS pressurized cargo mass ________
- max LEO/ISS unpressurized cargo mass ________
- max returned cargo mass ________
- cargo Dragon GLOW ________
- crewed Dragon GLOW ________
- Dragon's LAS mass ________
- max crew life support mass ________
- max crew+seats+spacesuits mass ________
- max mission autonomy (days) ________
- max Falcon-9 "dumb" payload to ISS orbit ________
all data should be in mT (1000 kg.) or kg.
the data of the crewed Dragon should be for a full, seven astronauts, mission
could the "commercial" SpaceX give CLEAR data and answers to the space community and the (potential) investors?
remember that NASA and USA should RELY (mainly or only) on the Falcon-9 and Dragon for the next TEN+ years!!!
.
Gaetano, I chose to publish your comment here, but I have seen you post this same comment or subtle variations thereof many many times on other blogs. Let us have this be the only time that you post this particular point, ok? And in exchange I will do my best to address your issues, and provide space for you to respond.
To begin, let's take your list. Can you show me where I can find the following data:
- payload adapter mass ________
- empty service module mass ________
- propellants mass ________
- empty capsule mass ________
- ejected nose cone mass ________
- max LEO/ISS pressurized cargo mass ________
- max LEO/ISS unpressurized cargo mass ________
- max returned cargo mass ________
- cargo Orion/Altair GLOW ________
- crewed Orion/Altair GLOW ________
- Orion/Altair's LAS mass ________
- max crew life support mass ________
- max crew+seats+spacesuits mass ________
- max mission autonomy (days) ________
- max Ares-1 or Ares-V "dumb" payload to ISS orbit ________
all data should be in mT (1000 kg.) or kg.
the data of the crewed Orion/Altair should be for a full, seven astronauts, mission
Or, you could provide it for Delta/Orion or Delta/Altair or anything else. I'm not interested in merely being pointed to a source, I would like the numbers filled in as well as the source.
Once you've finished looking all that up and tabulating the results, perhaps in a spreadsheet (Open Office dot org is a good open-source one to use), we can fill in whatever data is available for Falcon/Dragon and then fill in 2-significant-figure estimates with 95% confidence using some logic and common sense.
This will give us both that complete data set of particular interest to yourself. And then once all that is done, we shall both plainly see that knowing the mass of every nut and bolt is simply not necessary.
It should be plain that what we are most concerned with is not so much the specific implementation of the Earth-to-LEO journey, but just two variables:
- mass delivered to low earth orbit
- price
By dividing one by the other we can come up with a single number for an apples-to-apples side-by-side comparison of any launcher/vehicle combination you want. We shall call this number the "US$/kg_to_LEO".
vehicle US$/kg_to_LEO
shuttle ~ 8800
Falcon9 ~ 5360
F9Heavy ~ 2970
Ares-1 ~ 39000
Ares-V ~ 5320
Ares 1 and V are both assumed to cost the same as the shuttle launch - for the same reasons - about a billion apiece, with NASA simply swallowing the development costs over the span of a decade. R&D costs for Falcon are already factored into the price. And Falcon9 already exists.
The best NASA could do by following the Ares V path is basically equal the price point of the existing Falcon a decade and tens of billions of dollars of R&D later.
The question becomes: what is the minimum cost to NASA for getting people and supplies to low earth orbit? Do we want to lower cost to orbit, or not?
When we went to the moon originally, it was absolutely not about how to do it efficiently and cheaply. It was about being able to do it at all. Untold thousands of gadgets and technologies needed to be invented for the effort because previously, they did not exist. Those technologies propelled us as a nation to the forefront of not only space exploration, but to the forefront of the technology explosion that is still occurring today.
At a certain level, it becomes a matter of continuing to do the impossible because we don't want to give away our position of being on the cutting edge of technology over the rest of the world. It is really the only advantage that we have over the rest of the world. We can't manufacture as efficiently as the Japanese, and we certainly aren't going to outwork the Chinese, so if these countries gain the upper hand in technology development, then our time of having the highest standard of living in the world is over.
On a national level, having that "army of space workers" employed here provides exactly the type of high paying, high tech, jobs that we should be focusing on keeping here. Also, looking into the future, the dollars actually spent on building the impossible might not be super efficient right now, but it will certainly be priceless in terms of keeping the jobs and the expertise and the generation of new technologies for the future in this country.
If we back away from these investments in building the impossible and in turn keeping our place at the forefront of technological development, then our place in the world will certainly be lost forever.
It was about being able to do it at all.
If we do not do it efficiently and inexpensively, then we are merely repeating the demonstration that NASA can send a man to the moon and bring him back safely to earth. Well, the rest of the world already knows that. Doing it once again four decades later will be greeted with the same enthusiasm as Apollo 16. That is, nobody will care. Under Mike Griffin's tenure that was indeed the plan - Griffin himself called it "Apollo on steroids".
At a certain level, it becomes a matter of continuing to do the impossible because we don't want to give away our position of being on the cutting edge of technology over the rest of the world.
Well, you can't be on the cutting edge of technology by replicating four-decades-old missions. Nor can you be on the cutting edge by refusing to adapt and change.
On a national level, having that "army of space workers" employed here provides exactly the type of high paying, high tech, jobs that we should be focusing on keeping here.
Ah, so you think that if NASA was to lose the standing army, then none of those people would work for the private sector in the space industry. I'm certain that the best of the ex-NASA employees would quickly find work at one of dozens of existing space companies or even form their own. As for the worst of them, maybe they should be considering another career anyhow.
Post a Comment