This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Uncategorized

Old and New Space Are One in the Same

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
November 26, 2013
Filed under ,

Old Space / New Space: Its Just Name Calling, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

41 responses to “Old and New Space Are One in the Same”

  1. Bill Adkins says:
    0
    0

    Maybe it’s not “New” vs “Old”, but breaks along somewhat different lines…”Real Space” vs. “Fantasy Space”

    Some of the new and old space are real, and some are fantasy. It’d be more useful, in these austere times, to focus on what’s real, rather than on what might be if….

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      I could not agree more. Well put.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Which begs the question of how we agree on a strategy among ourselves and then persuade lawmakers.

      • Bill Adkins says:
        0
        0

        excellent question. I think it probably starts and ends with an objective analysis of realistic options given current budget for human space of about $7B (which may be optimistic). Iterate those options against the question of what is human spaceflight for? Hopefully, there is a solution, though my guess is the community will have to pare back its ambitions quite a bit. For the past decade or longer human space has been “swinging for the fences” with programs/ideas where budget should follow policy. Today, such thinking couldn’t be further from reality. A space program that is realistic technically and fiscally is needed. This probably requires a major change in perspective/culture. I’d much rather have sustained incremental improvements than risky major developments. If there is no solution “worthy of this great nation”, then It should be shelved, with the exception of continuing ISS to some logical conclusion, if there is one. Basically, I think the space program has played fanatsy space for long enough and now it’s time to get real or get out.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          I’d much rather have sustained incremental improvements than risky major developments.

          Exactly! I’ve long felt that this is a critical issue. More time and money have been lost arguing, starting and then canceling mega-programs, than anything else (except lobbying, of course).

          Taken together, all of the manageable-sized programs and projects that could have been done over the last few decades could have given us a large tool box full of tools and techniques from which we could now construct just about any realistic space infrastructure we wished within the limits of current technology.

          We keep getting a few days worth of encouraging announcements and proposals followed by a few years worth of large steps backwards. And not only do the politicians tolerate this waste, they are the largest contributors to it, their goals being apparently very different from ours.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        I don’t think you we they can agree on a strategy. Some one has to just show em lead!

        What if Spacex did tinkers idea and got a dragon fuel station up there next year. Would not that be the start of building a highway to the moon mars and asteriods???

        Today with a little luck the price to GEO may drop by almost 75 percent. If we can’t get old space, new space pubic space commercial space to plan a staircase. Somebody surely could should make the next step.

        Put a little fuel depot up there on the cheap and dare em not to use it!!!

  2. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    Good article but as far as I’m concerned SpaceX is the only NewSpace company out there:

    – They were self-contained and self-funded from day one, privately funded at that, until they earned a NASA development contract for cargo delivery to the ISS.

    – Instead of a ‘cost-plus’ contract, SpaceX’s contract split the cost between themselves and NASA, where NASA had the final say on acceptance of product.

    – After completing 2 demonstration flights, SpaceX earned a contract to deliver cargo to the ISS on a tonnage/time basis.

    – SpaceX again won a contract to develop a crewed version of Dragon on the same basis as the cargo contract.

    Aside from those two NASA development contracts, SpaceX is still self-contained and self-funded.

    Anyone know of a aerospace company that has done so much with so little? Note that the risks SpaceX has taken getting this far have also been self-contained.

    Note to NASA: If you’re forced to issue a ‘cost-plus’ contract for the next crew to ISS phase, I know a li’le company that won’t abuse the taxpayers dollars (but I’m sure you know who I mean).

    tinker

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Tinker,

      I think we have to consider more than just the financial aspects. Whatever labels anyone chooses to apply, what I think we’re really recognizing is a difference in corporate attitude and mission. To suggest that SpaceX is the only NewSpace company is to very much overlook the ideas, attitudes and contributions of people like Greason, Bigelow, Rutan, Branson, Paul Allen, and others, who are maybe not as much in the spotlight as Musk and SpaceX, but clearly share the same general goals and attitudes, and care every bit as much as Musk, or us.

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

        Steve:

        I think you missed the point (which means I didn’t form my argument well enough!)

        It’s not about the finances… it’s about control SpaceX has done what they’ve done because they have maintained firm control of their direction with little or no outside interference.

        They actually are all about space, not jobs, not the next election, not pandering to ‘constituents’… space!

        It’s a simple formula, but look what they have done with it. Of course they didn’t do it alone, they have had NASA’s grateful help and the innovation of a myriad of other companies small and large to draw upon and purchase technology from.

        It’s all about control. It can hold you back or let you leap ahead.

        tinker

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          OK, I hear you. But still, aside from the nature of the contracts that have been awarded and the differing markets that they’re wooing, how is that any different from, say, those behind Scaled Composites, who put far more into winning the original X-Prize than it was paying out — and did it entirely their own way? How is it any different from all of the investment that Bigelow has made and the innovations that his people have brought to human space? How is it different from Branson et al developing Virgin Galactic and SS2/WK2 for a marketplace completely of their own defining? etc.?

          To be involved in the game at all, each of the players need one or more markets, and eventually one or more contracts and/or product/service offerings. SpaceX is clearly leading the way in these respects within the smaller, newer companies, but the others are also in the game, even if only by virtue of the fact that they are invited to bid on RFPs and offer products and/or services in one or more space markets.

          Even those companies and institutions who only perform things like studies and consultations can be said to be part of the industry, and more and more of them are beginning to think and analyze in increasingly “new space”-like ways. I think we have to recognize and acknowledge this or else they’ll convert/revert to “old space” ways so as to get their recognition from the status quo entities.

          I’m not trying to take anything away from SpaceX, or reduce either their accomplishments or their methods and means, but I think we have to do the same with the other “alleged new space” companies or we’ll lose them — and besides, I believe they’ve earned that recognition. I see SpaceX as first amongst trying-to-be-equals, if that makes any sense.

          I’m not trying to be argumentative, that’s just how I see things.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Didn’t Paul Allen open his checkbook for the Xprize because he saw it as a LONGTERM investment possiblity for the future?

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Who can say for sure? But he is a believer; that’s a given. He’s also poured a pile of money into SETI hardware and there’s little chance of seeing a financial return from that. Allen certainly doesn’t need to make more money, so I’m assuming it wasn’t simply investment on his part, but I don’t know for certain.

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

            Steve:

            Some interesting points you have there so I’ll amend my opinion to say ‘SpaceX does NewSpace better than anyone else… right now!’. They are ahead in the two most important aspects of spaceflight: launch and crew to orbit. Our collective future in space depends on these two abilities. Everything else orbits around them.

            Unlike most folks, I consider it a given that SpaceX will master launch vehicle reusability and eventually ramp up to two flights a day from more than one launch sites. As few as 100 reusable boosters would meet that demand (considering a turn-around time for a booster at a realistic twenty days).

            Then, and only then, will the price point and availability of launch slots open up the market for low cost payloads. Some examples are, liquids and gasses (see elsewhere in this article) and raw structural material: aluminum plate, alloy tubing, wire, epoxy coatings, meteor shielding, etc..

            But as far as other ‘NewSpace’ companies go, like SpaceX, they are hanging from a thread right now. There is no time to cooperate, coordinate or combine. Bigelow’s largest hab could fly on the Falcon Heavy… but he couldn’t afford the launch cost until all three core stages can be recovered. Tickets for folks won’t come down to a reasonable level until the launch vehicle and spacecraft can both be rapidly and completely reusable (I’m already working on that one! ;)).

            The cards have been delt out, we just don’t know if it’s a winning hand yet (there’s some cheaters in the game so it makes things harder).

            As far as Virgin Galactic is concerned, great effort that I think will succeed… but a different game entirely. Orbit or bust!

            tinker

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Tinker,

            Agreed on all points except one — I’d say that the cards are still being dealt, and we haven’t yet seen what everybody’s showing, let alone their hole cards; so there are still unknown variables and possible turn-arounds. But I agree SpaceX is clearly leading the pack, way out in front, among the new-comers.

            Given that much of this game is psychological, I don’t think those people who suggest that SpaceX will overtake the established aerospace companies are doing them any favors. Boeing and the rest are bloated and dependent; if SpaceX is smart, they’ll limit their “size” to only what’s necessary for efficiency and effectiveness, and not simply keep growing. It’s predecessors kept growing and then the market shrunk, but they still try to keep growing, or at least not shrink themselves, to everybody’s cost.

            If all of the aerospace companies, new and old, were to size themselves and their earnings goals to match the specific market(s) they were servicing over a given time period (taking into account those with whom they are in direct competition), then I believe there would be more than enough market for everybody, but as it is, for too long their bidding and planning habits have been on autopilot; but that’s a whole other discussion too long to get into here.

            I think we’re basically of the same mind, and we need to make sure we don’t discourage any of the “new-space” companies.

            My only other comment is that this !@#$ editor is getting really frustrating to work with again.

            Thanks for another interesting exchange.

            Steve

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            I agree with you, however of these innovative companies only SpaceX has actually built a launch vehicle and put a major operational payload in orbit. Scaled was also very innovative but they have been sold to Northrup Grumman so no longer exist as an independent company.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Agreed. I guess my main point, really, is that many of us are quite willing to say “when” instead of “if” when it comes to SpaceX. I think we need to do the same with the other newer and/or smaller aerospace companies as well, because if they don’t feel like they’re being appreciated, or not getting a fair shake, they’re quite likely to turn their backs, individually and/or collectively, on the new-space ways of thinking, and just become more and more like the big aerospace companies, to everybody’s loss, including their own.

  3. muomega0 says:
    0
    0

    In the Stephen C. Smith followup, http://spaceksc.blogspot.co

    “OldSpace and NewSpace represent two very different cultures. One likes to bully and bribe and stifle competition. The other, for the most
    part, embraces competition and punches above the belt.”

    “In 2010, as NASA’s Constellation program was about to be cancelled, Congress scrambled to protect the OldSpace contractors by devising the Space Launch System. Critics have dubbed it the Senate Launch System. Congress ordered NASA to ‘utilize existing contracts, investments, workforce, industrial base, and capabilities from the Space Shuttle and Orion and Ares 1 projects’. That meant protecting Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and ATK.”

    There is quite a bit of experience there, indeed.

    Companies are in the business to answer to the stock owners and increase value. It is not their goal to meet to meet the countries goals, or to meet NASA goals (for example theSpace Grand challenges that include Economical Access to Space) unless it fits their need to increase shareholder value. So if one approach employs 5,000 and another 10,000, at 7% fee, which would you choose if your are on a government cost + fee contract? How do you eliminate competition that offers the alternative?

    That does not stop “new space” companies, often backed by ‘old space’ companies, from using the same tactics as the “old space” companies. For example, Blue Origin filing a complaint to the GAO alleging that NASA had given an unfair advantage to SpaceX for pad39, and the complaint was backed by oldspace companies (ULA). Net result: delay and stifle competition – the same tactic used by parts of congress, to no one’s surprise.

    NASA has hundreds if not thousands of ‘real’ technologies ready to move up the TRL ladder, but do not have adequate funding because of ‘oldspace’. So what is oldspace? How about this:

    ‘oldspace’- an organization that stifles competition for their stockholder or constituents gain {for the most part} and not in the best interests of the NASA’s ‘objectives’. ‘newspace’ welcomes competition {for the most part} since they have a better, ‘real’ alternative. Both old and new space have many ‘fantasies’ they want to the government to fund.

    The focus on what is ‘real space’ is simple to squash: only TRL 6 by
    PDR and above need apply, then slip the schedule later once the contract is in hand and the competition has been eliminated, or simply place into law new ‘objectives’ for the agency (70, 130 mT and Orion). Is this hitting below the belt and when do the economics cross the line?

    Funny thing:..almost all want new space and a job rather than old space and a job. Think about it 🙂 There surely must be a way to balance missions and technology going forward within budget, meeting agency, corporate, and congressional objectives.

    So when does MSFC start building that LEO propellant depot to enable both old and new space and the IPs to increase launch rate and reduce costs to IMLEO to provide more Economical Access to Space? When does ‘old space’ with all their experience start building the mission hardware and demonstrate new technologies or does ‘new space’ have better alternatives?

    The great news is that NASA has so much work ahead developing
    technology for the three legged stool (mars, asteroids, moon, etc).

    IOW: there is lots of gravy and left overs. Happy T-Day!

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      muomega0:

      I have a better idea than simple LEO fuel depots and all the hardware has already been flown and tested.

      Instead of fuel depots, how about fuel on demand!

      A special version of SpaceX’s Dragon capsule could be made that does nothing but deliver fuel to LEO. In the same way that the Russian Progress uses it’s decent module to carry extra fuel (and other volatiles), Dragon’s pressurized volume could easily carry 3 metric tonnes of fuel. The ‘trunk’ could carry another 3 tonnes. The trunks and solar panels could be left on orbit as ‘tank farms’ while the empty capsule could be reentered and reused.

      Development could start now! . Once SpaceX masters reusable booster stages, there would even be a excellent business case for this.

      tinker

      • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
        0
        0

        Something similar can be done with the Cygnus. A tank and pump could be inserted into the current cargo hold. Replacing the storage area with a tank is also possible but more expensive.

        • John Gardi says:
          0
          0

          Andrew:

          Sure Cygnus could be used as a fuel tanker but they couldn’t compete in the market place.

          Cygnus is disposable, so is their launch vehicle.

          Not sustainable

          tinker

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            Currently the Antares and Cygnus are not reusable. Only five years ago (2008) NASA signed a Space Act Agreement with Orbital to develop them. Give Orbital 5-10 more years and their replacements may be reusable.

            Orbital will soon be feeling the winds of competition.

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

            Andrew:

            I completely agree. Orbital Sciences will be a player for sure.

            But first they’ll have to buy reusable booster stages from SpaceX (a distinct possibility) and also embrace the idea of flying payloads build for a tenth the cost of Cygnus.

            tinker

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            SpaceX does not have a monopoly on reusable boosters, Blue Origin is testing them.

            Single engine reusable ‘landers’ have been developed by Armadillo, Masten and Project Morpheus. Some of their staff may like a career with a firm that is going to be around in 4 years time.

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

            Andrew:

            Blue Origin is playing a losing hand. Liquid Hydrogen is too hard to work with and too hard on hardware to be a commercial contender (same goes for rockets and cars). Also, Jeff Bezos hasn’t put forth any sort of future guidance for his development program like Elon Musk has. Until he puts his cards on the table I can’t include him in any assessment.

            As far as the companies making li’le landers, hey, we’ve got destinations for them: the Moon, Mars’ moons, Mars! First things first though, their time hasn’t come yet.

            tinker

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            I agree that hydrogen is much too hard to work with, but would add “right now.” I invite you to reflect on the weeks before and after discovery of things like carbon fiber and carbon nanotubes. Things can change in a hurry, and without advanced notice.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Mr. Swallow
        Shouldn’t someone anyone new space old space do this now in a cheap way as tinker suggests. We need a gas station up there on the cheap.

        Steve, you just said, small incremental steps, Isnt this the next step???

        Well???

        Highway to the stars

        Smart Space

        • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
          0
          0

          Cheap gas station in space.

          Three spacecraft cabled together.
          * Left hand spacecraft – the LOX.
          * Right hand spacecraft – the fuel e.g. methane.
          * Center spacecraft – holds the berthing arm. May also supply the visiting spacecraft with electrical power.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            So if ISS can come up with a smarter way to dump the trash It would be possible to make a three part depot out of cargo “junk” use these paid for ISS cargo runs to build it. ISS astronauts could connect the parts together right? And dragon tanker could refuel it. Couldn’t this be a modular design that grows??? Like the ISS design so more than one company/country can add parts/tanks. In hard times seems to me, we should be more creative with what we have.

            George Worthington

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            Bigelow BEAMs can be used as trash dumps.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          George,

          I agree; it qualifies as a logical small step — done right — but I’d add one qualifier: Tinker said, “Development could start now.,” which is true, but actual building and testing will take significant money, so a guaranteed, on-going market, to begin at an accurately know time, would be necessary to take it past a certain development point.

          As a side note: For support technologies and facilities like this, I very much hope that before anyone puts too much work and money into them that the various national governments and the UN have thought through and got control of the patent and anti-combine laws so that no one tries to claim a monopoly on either this service or the technologies and hardware that it will employ. Quite aside from the financial aspects, limiting it would be a huge safety drawback, which will inevitably limit what can be done in space and drive insurance rates somewhere up over the other side of Jupiter.

          Steve

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Question: The fuel volume could be contained, and I’m sure you’ve checked that the mass could be lifted, but would the inertial sensors and controllers be capable of responding to and managing that large of a fluid volume? with a shifting center of mass (as propellant burns)? and considering that there will be two such masses?

        Question: Once a fuel load has been delivered and you want to refill a unit in the tank farm, how hard would it be to stabilize it in movement (6 degrees?) so it could be docked with, held stable, and refilled?

        As well as plumbing for loading, unloading, pressure maintenance and fire extinguishing, you’d also need to add plumbing for automatic disconnect/shut-off, otherwise a hit or leak of any one “tank” will lose you the whole farm.

        Just some thoughts.

        • John Gardi says:
          0
          0

          Steve:

          Liquid volume management is very simple.

          We’re not talking flight tanks here but storage tanks. Either have vertical cylindrical ones or vertical baffles in larger tanks. Progress uses many small tanks in the descent module for fuel shipments.

          One reason I chose the Dragon for fuel depots is that an equal mass of liquid cargo could be stored in both capsule and trunk. Each launch could leave a full trunk with solar panels behind, docking it in parallel with other trunks, then empty the capsules fuel load into an empty trunk. You bring up new full trunks and fill up empty ones… every flight!

          Full trunks could be ‘picked up’ too, undocked from the stack of them and carried on a mission. Bring is back, dock it to the tank farm and pick up a full one. No fuel transfer needed, except to feed the spaceships engines.

          Meanwhile, the Dragon fuel capsules could be used as stand-alone smart propulsion units with their own guidance and 4 tonnes of fuel. All you’d need is a data connection to your spacecraft (and that could be wireless!).

          A complete Dragon/trunk fuel tanker could do the same thing, only with 7 tonnes of fuel to play with. Even if it is hypergolic fuel, this version would make a good SEP stage to the Moon for a substantial cargo.

          Don’t let the little details discourage you. I don’t. I work out solutions instead.

          tinker

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Tinker,

            I guess I’m confused. You said to muomega0, “A special version of SpaceX’s Dragon capsule could be made that does nothing but deliver fuel to LEO” and you prefaced it by saying, “and all the hardware has already been flown and tested,” and finally, “the empty capsule could be reentered and reused.

            To me you were clearly talking about delivering fuel to an orbital depot/farm with Dragons. The storage aspect was your second point. This seems pretty straight forward, but I’m concerned about the Dragon design’s inertial equipment managing the volumes, masses and moment arms of 3-tonne fuel packages (or any liquid); they’re not insignificant. And unless you’re starting to load a craft from fully pressurized tanks every time (which isn’t going to happen) I think you’re going to need a hefty ullage system (or equivalent) as well. All of these problem could be reduced in scale by subdividing the tanks, say with bladders, but not eliminated.

            In a capsule design that has been optimized for maximum volume and minimum mass, while providing sufficient strength in all directions, I have to assume that components have been critically placed to control and preserve CofG as much as possible. If this is the case, then the ability to control it with that much sloshing fuel pumped into it is something that I wouldn’t make assumptions about. I’ll even go as far as to suggest it is not something that can be accommodated by simple rework; I suspect it’s a designed-in-from-day-one requirement, especially if it is to be reusable. But that’s just my take on things.

            Steve

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            Major movement of the vehicle probably only occurs when the tanks are full or empty. Both are trivial cases for CofG calculations.

            When supplying propellant the depot will be basically stationary so an acceleration of 1/1000 g may be sufficient to settle the liquids.

            If you want to speed up the pumping a small electric motor to rotate the tank around the x axis. Fit exit points of the side of the tank.may help.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Thanks Andrew. I get the feeling that I’m maybe not making myself clear. There are two separate situations of concern, as I see it. First is getting fuel into the depot using Dragons. Second is getting fuel out of the depot, whatever containers we use as storage “tanks.”

            Getting fuel to the depot using Dragon capsules and trunks was Tinker’s first suggestion, and my major concern (although I do really like it, if it can be made to work). If I understand it, he’s basically saying:

            • fill a capsule and its trunk sitting on the Earth each with 3 tonnes of fuel;
            • launch the Dragon/trunk into LEO and either —
            1) dock with an existing fuel depot and transfer some or all of the just-launched fuel into the depot, or
            2) dock with an existing fuel depot and leave the loaded trunk just launched as an newly added part of the depot, or
            3) create a new fuel depot using the trunk you’ve just launched and its fuel and solar cell units;
            • the capsule goes on to its next (mission) function or returns to Earth;

            It’s the launching the fuel to LEO phase that has me concerned. Capsule and trunk each were designed to be of sufficient strength while being of minimum mass, but capable of lifting maximum mass and/or volume. All of the ratings, optimizations, trade-offs and calculations would have been made based on certain assumptions. I’m making the additional reasonable assumption that those assumptions did not include a load comprised entirely of fluid (and flammable fluid, at that). Whereas payloads would normally be strapped, or otherwise held, into fixed positions, a completely fluid payload is going to have third-law reaction properties that — I believe — will strain the attitude control and stability systems beyond what they were ever intended to deal with — not just because it can shift, but because of the speed and acceleration with which it can shift. And, of course, the same concern exists for any redundant back-up systems.

            I can’t find any numbers published for the Dragon to indicate its designed capabilities in this area. There might also be similar concerns for the integrated Dragon/Falcon stack, which would — I believe — take on top-heavy-like characteristics not designed for. In both cases it might be no problem, or it might be a relatively simple matter of beefing up the inertial sensors, controllers and/or software. The point is, I can’t image that anyone has checked this in detail, and I don’t foresee it as having been designed for that level of stability. The Falcon 9 has no aerodynamic stabilization (tail fins), so is the latency in the control of the 9 engines short enough to “balance the pencil on your finger tip”? The Dragon has thrusters that, presumably, can handle this situation, the only concern being that the thrusters are all on the capsule, with none on the trunk, which is carrying an equal mass of fuel payload.

            As for getting fuel out of the depot, this is (presumably) going to be a common problem (ullage), so someone will hopefully come up with a generic, manufacturer-independent solution. I don’t see how tank rotation can be a solution, since with a fuel depot or fuel farm we won’t have independent “tanks”; we’ll have “tanks” that are all connected to a single common plumbing network for each “fuel” type. It would be very inefficient, and an increased potential danger, if you had to disconnect from a fuel tank once you’d emptied it and then connect to another one to continue. You don’t want to even think about trying to spin the whole farm.

            When you say “Fit exit points of the side of the tank may help,” I don’t understand since, in the micro-g of LEO, “side” really has no meaning, let a lone unique physical properties, that I can see.

            Another issue is that Dragon’s rated orbital duration is 2 years, so that (less a safety margin) is the longest you would want to be leaving a Dragon as a tank in the farm, if they are being used that way. Ideally, anything that will be considered as an emergency/safety facility, like a fuel depot, should have a life much longer than two years (not just because of the cost, but more for the guarantee that it’ll be there and working when needed).

            Another thought: If we’re going to have a “fuel” depot, then likely we’ll plan for oxidizer(s), oxygen (breathing, fuel cells), hydrogen (fuel cells), and other chemicals, such as atmosphere scrubbing sodas, and even other fuel types, all to be stored at one “farm” location. We’ll have to work out some reasonable safety rules for what can be stored together (and how) and/or shipped together. This will have to address cost and safety equally.

            To use this Dragon/fuel depot scheme SpaceX would have to prove their docking capabilities (they’ve only been berthed on ISS). On a large fuel depot/farm it may not be out of the question to have a robot arm system like the Shuttle and ISS so that incoming craft can be berthed, which is safer than docking (at least so far). However, this would require either someone on board the depot to operate it or a sophisticated, expensive, yet-to-be-developed, remote control system for it. On a smaller fuel depot, which will almost certainly be unmanned, it will almost certainly be necessary to dock a spacecraft to refuel it — unless perhaps it is brought to a dead stop relative to the depot and waldo/automatic systems can be used to connect hoses between the depot and the spacecraft and somehow hold them steady for the duration. Once again, this is undeveloped, untested technology that would have to be taken forward. Ideally, everything would be automated with back-up systems that a child could invoke.

            Tip of the hat: Tinker’s suggestion of taking a fuel-loaded Dragon trunk “fuel tank” from a depot to use on a mission brings to mind DTARS’s space train concept, since if you can take one tank, you can take more and chain them together for missions that are long (in distance or time) or large. Wagon trains across the solar system — envisioned and promoted by George W and built by SpaceX.

            Sorry for writing yet another novel, but I think the fuel depot/fuel farm concept is a good and very important idea, and I’d like to see as many people thinking through the details as possible.

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            It’s the launching the fuel to LEO phase that has me concerned. …

            That is easy. You are talking about slosh in a full tank. The first stages are designed to handle slosh in the upper stage tanks.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Understood, but we’re now talking about a significant amount of liquid payload in the capsule and trunk, sitting well above “the first stages,” since I assume you’re talking about the Falcon’s tanks, whereas I’m talking about tanks (which don’t currently exist) in the capsule and trunk, as per Tinker’s proposal.

            Considerable smarts have to go into the design of an LV to take care of this because the fuel level drops as you boost and CofG shifts, right? But that sort of thought and hardware isn’t put into a capsule intended for dry payload, pressurized or non-pressurized. Now we’ll need it, even for full “payload” tanks, because fluid payload has damping motion characteristics to compensate for that didn’t exist in the designed-for scenario.

            I’m not looking to kill this proposal; rather I’m looking to make sure there’s no reason why it can’t be made to work. The more tasks we can get any piece of hardware to do well, the happier I am.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      muomega0,

      As a generalized response to your comments, I personally think you’re seeing this in a very realistic light. It’s not too far removed from what I’ve long thought, which is that there’s no need for over-the-top competition resulting in an us-or-them environment (new- vs. old-space). Obviously new and old are not interchangeable tools (at this time), and there is more than enough work to be done for all of the aerospace companies, each of which is well-suited to doing some of those tasks but not others. The real limitation is money.

      Think about if we could end the battling between companies aimed at stomping down the other guys, and instead get them all working with the other guys on an integrated plan. Not only would it be an impressive political and diplomatic accomplishment, it might just set a valuable precedent.

      And the big thing is, with the money saved by ending lobbying and campaign contributions alone there would probably be enough additional money put back into play to do some of the currently-ignored worthwhile space programs and create more than enough work for all of the aerospace companies and their various subcontractor industries.

      With any luck, demonstrated success might even cause the concept to spread to international cooperations. Then we would see a case where space exploration and development really did change and shape our future. The catch, of course, is that the initial “good example” to get things rolling in this direction would have to be set by certain members of Congress, who would have to abandon their own selfishly competitive tactics, and that, perhaps, is a speed bump that there’s no way of climbing over.

      Steve

  4. Bill Adkins says:
    0
    0

    Most of the ideas i’ve read on this thread are in the “fantasy space” realm, and nobody has addressed the rationale for doing any of this (human space). Without a compelling rationale underlying why any of this should be done, who cares how neat it might be.

    I have no issue with how private investors and entrepreneurs spend their own resources (so long as it’s legal), but I have a real problem spending taxpayer’s money on what seems like an engineer’s playground leading to no clear end. I have heard every argument over the past several decades for why do human space (expand economic sphere, inspiration, human destiny, human survival, nationalism/geopolitics, technology, written in the huamn hearts, it’s what great nation’s do, etc.). None of it is convincing, and most of the objectives would be better achieved through investment in other areas. Space is only one frontier, it’s not the only frontier.

    I unserstand many people will disagree, but the evidence over the past 10 years (since Columbia initiated a serious examination of the future f human space) reveals a pattern of unrealistic planning and programming. Again, i think people need to get real and come up with a plan bounded by current budgets, or get out of the business.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      The only reason a species moves out of their person protection zone for living is to aquire new resources. Fundamentally we explore any “space” as a species, is to see if there is any useful resource. We know space has resources. So it is have never really been a question of why, it is more a question of when.