Old Thinking Will Not Open New Possibilities In Space
Ask the Astronaut: Why not build and launch spacecraft from the ISS?, Tom Jones, Air & Space
“We won’t use the ISS as a departure point for cost reasons. First, the ISS today is a microgravity research lab, not a spacecraft assembly hangar. Modifying it for assembly, checkout, and propellant storage would cost billions of dollars NASA does not have. A second, more serious problem is that the ISS orbit is inclined to the equator at 51.6 degrees, as opposed to a 28.5-degree orbit reached by launching straight east from Kennedy Space Center. (We chose the ISS orbit so the Russians could reach it from their launch sites farther north.) To haul spacecraft parts and propellant to ISS for assembly in that high-inclination orbit, we would lose about 20 percent of each rocket’s payload capacity, since we can’t use as much of the Earth’s eastward rotation to give us a free boost to orbital velocity. That payload penalty would add billions to the costs of any deep space expedition assembled at ISS (e.g., a Mars expedition will need many hundreds of tons of propellant for Earth departure).”
Keith’s note: This is a classic example of the old way of thinking. Tom Jones apparently cannot imagine an alternate future where things change.
1. He assumes that everything that we do in the future will be done by NASA – the way that NASA always does things – and that it will be equally as expensive as NASA stuff always is. Narrow thinking.
2. The penalty for launching to 51.6 degrees – yea its real. Launching to 28.5 degrees like the Shuttle did had a penalty when compared to launching from the equator. So we moved the station to make it easier for the Russians – and harder for ourselves. As NASA did at the time, you just factor launch capabilities into the overall equation – one wherein you factor in the counterbalancing benefit of being able to assemble large things in space and test them out from an existing location that has the benefit of generous resources already in place. That’s how we built the space station, Tom – remember? Oh yes: NASA also still “hauls spacecraft parts and propellant” to ISS routinely – and a lof the stuff is launched from Virginia and Florida not Kazakhstan. If NASA plans hold up we’ll be doing even more of that – with crew too. But that’s inefficient, right? So why are we doing it?
3. The inclination issue as it relates to where you want to send things – yea, if you want to use big rockets all the time and get everywhere in a hurry. But if you simply exercise a little advanced planning, be patient, and plan longer delivery times using solar- or nuclear-electric propulsion then time will solve these problems – and you can factor the lower costs of such systems into your overall cost equation.
4. ISS is a microgravity lab – this is something I had to deal with every day when I worked on space station at NASA in the 90s. I had experts telling me that anything the astronauts did would ruin everything that the scientists wanted to do – and vice versa. So NASA came up with rack level vibroacoustic isolation and used scheduling to manage noisy activities. Problem solved. BTW, Tom you have seen the video of how the entire space station flexes when its exercise time for the crew, yes? I do not hear scientists screaming how this makes their research impossible. Crew and cargo vehicles arrive and depart on a regular basis. How is that any different than “launching” a spacecraft from ISS? But wait: Nanoracks is actually launching cubesats from the ISS on a regular basis. Again, no complaints.
I remember back in the 90s when the orbit was shifted to 51.6 – and the implications that had for Shuttle launch windows. I sat in meetings where experts emphatically stated that NASA could never work with 5 minute launch windows. Well, they did. Now SpaceX has managed to design hardware and operations such that they can recycle multiple times within a single launch window. I remember people saying that you could not dock a Soyuz to the space station due to the somewhat brutal way it docks and how fragile the U.S. structure was. So they docked to the Russian segment instead. Problem solved. I remember asking why we couldn’t leave logistics modules on the ISS permanently for simple storage. Everyone said “no” because of super high costs to make them meet requirement. Now they do – because they decided to – with only minimal mods. NASA wanted a reusable Space Shuttle that would fly like an airline. It never actually happened. Now Blue Origin and SpaceX are on the cusp of doing it. Just because the same group of experts says that something is not possible or practical doesn’t mean that you can’t go out and find other experts who can make it work.
Who knows, maybe we will just shift the future role of ISS at some point to focus on on-orbit assembly of larger expeditionary vessels and do the science stuff on the next generation of space stations built by the private sector. Look at Antarctica – there are bases there that have been operating continuously for more than half a century. They are constantly being readjusted to do new things and not do other things. Some are decommissioned. Some are disassembled. New ones now move or raise their height when conditions warrant. Some are rebuilt using parts from older facilities. Fragile cargo and people fly in on planes. Other supplies arrive on slow-moving ships that depart weeks or months in advance of when their cargoes are actually needed. One would hope that we try and instill similar flexibility in what we build in low Earth orbit and beyond. If we don’t adopt expeditionary thinking and pragmatism then none of this commercial LEO stuff NASA is praying for is going to happen since no commercial effort will ever be able to afford things that are mired down with outmoded NASA costing and operational mindsets.
Oh yes: then there’s Mark Watney and “The Martian”. What better way to make sure a Mars ship works than to run it for a year or two in LEO after being assembled from smaller subunits launched by a variety of existing ISS cargo carrier. If we do not promote flexibility and long-term thinking in LEO and cis-lunar space so as to guide the whole #JourneyToMars thing we’ll just be begging for something bad to happen because no one thought to equip our Mars crews with the ability (and experience) to fix things that are not supposed to break.
Just because we’ve done things a certain way in space doesn’t mean that this is the only way to do things.
Yea, I was a little surprised by Tom’s anxiousness to support the NASA party line-like, Dragon and CST ‘cannot be used for lunar or planetary missions’. Though this is what “Orion is designed for”. Got news for you Tom, but Dragon is going to Mars in a couple years, let alone the moon and could very well be the first vehicle to return with Mars samples. Also, the idea that a crew will live in an Orion for a month or longer; maybe but it is still essentially camping out. Any vehicle that is going on a trip of that kind of duration will carry a separate habitation module, both for habitability and for redundancy. Likewise, the idea that ISS is “microgravity lab”. Yes there is some micro-G work going on, and perhaps some of it will one day prove useful. But the station was conceived and designed from the outset to do other things. AMS is not a micro-G payload, and yet its the single largest, most expensive, and most significant research effort on-board ISS so far. The recent year in space/twin study was another research program that did not require 10-6 G levels. In fact the crew members probably could have used some more useful tasks while they were there. Another purpose of ISS as it was conceived and designed, is on-orbit assembly. On-orbit assembly of the ISS itself, done in part using the ISS systems, particularly the Canadian robotics, is probably the most significant achievement of the ISS program to date, especially after the international integration, which is the number 1 achievement. No one in or out of the ISS Program seems to talk about any of these alternative uses because the program’s communications function is apparently managed in whole by the program scientist.
In fact some of the micro-G work on ISS better have a positive outcome or Larry Young’s statement that the ‘ISS is on the cusp of failure’ will come true. As far as future micro-G moving to another platform and ISS being used as an assembly node, as Keith suggests, was actually the original idea-ISS was not supposed to be alone in orbit. Some described the ISS plan as being a bit like “remora”, the small fish swimming together with the larger animals; with the ISS serving as the habitat and central hub, but with the sensitive micro-G work, observation research of earth and space, and other activities done on separate spacecraft flying nearby, in formation. In fact half of the plan is already coming true with the micro-satellites already being deployed from ISS. When they start coming back for recovery by the ISS, or for refurbishment, etc, then the other half will come true. The overemphasis on ISS being solely a micro-G lab is really not a healthy thing for the program or for NASA. It both builds expectations that might not be met and simultaneously limits contemplation of alternative plans.
I agree that “overemphasis on ISS being solely a micro-G lab is really not a healthy thing for the program”. This is something that has developed over the last 10 or 15 years. I think this was a fiction that mainly the current set of ISS managers developed and encouraged when they lacked a broader perspective of ISS’ place in the program.
This reminds me of the HSF ops people trying to convince everyone that the Shuttle was “operational”. This was a biased, self-fulfilling prophesy; they wanted Shuttle operational’ because they were the operators, which unfortunately led to absolutely no effort ever being made to improve upon the already splendidly “operational” system; no improvements to the vehicle design; no improvements to the system efficiency. Others, like Spacehab, came in and showed how to operate more efficiently, but NASA never tried.
That misconstrued attitude led to the current set of NASA management trashing the system rather than fixing it for long term use, which was another one of the original plans for Shuttle in conjunction with ISS-as an earth to orbit and LEO work truck. We are now hearing on a daily basis that NASA wants to wash its hands of ISS and turn it over to a commercial operator. Funny, we heard the same thing on Shuttle, didn’t we? NASA, after all, is going to go off and do the big, new, exciting things. NASA needs to figure out what its real job ought to be.
There is plenty to keep us preoccupied with ISS and develop new systems to make proper use of its capabilities. But the NASA management needs to get its head screwed on properly if its going to come to pass.
Watney’s Hermes Mars ship was “assembled in low earth orbit in SpaceX dockyard” according to the movies official back story, as mentioned in “Ares 3 mission guide” on the movie website.
It wouldn’t fit on an SLS anyway, nor would any other manned Mars campaign fit on a single rocket of any kind. But orbital assembly and mission staging is scary and dangerous, as proven by ISS, MIR, Salyut’s, Gemini-Agena. And of course, Apollo – I mean, imagine if we had any docking events in Apollo flights??
Well, all sarcasm aside. Gemini-Agena WAS pretty danged scary.
The question was building and launching spacecraft from the ISS. Coming from the public, they likely were thinking of large communication or planetary spacecraft. What such spacecraft do you think could be built on the ISS and how much would it cost?
Space telescopes with segmented mirrors.
savuporo’s suggestion is a good one.
More broadly, almost any kind of small satellite or probe could be usefully assembled on orbit from a tightly-packed, Ikea-like “kit” of parts sent up on a cargo flight. Eliminating self-deployment mechanicals would not only save a lot of engineering effort, money and mass, it would also eliminate many potential failure modes.
The ISS is hardly an ideal place to do such assembly and checkout in shirtsleeves, however, as the on-board airlock facilities are limited.
A specialized assembly shop module that could support pressurized shirt-sleeve assembly operations followed by a pump-down of atmosphere before manual or automated deployment through a “door” that encompasses an entire wall or end of the module would be optimal. That would apply to Bigelow B330-based stations as well.
Great minds come to similar conclusions. May I immodestly direct your attention to a piece of mine in this week’s Space Review that directly addresses this issue? Hope you all like it.
“But NASA business as usual is fiercely defended by many in Congress from both parties. NASA centers, in particular, will be defended with Stalingrad-like ferocity.”
I can see it now: The Siege at Ames (or Glenn or whatever non-AL, FL, TX centers).
“And, on both the Moon and Mars, there’s no consensus on where to go.”
I know space fans argue between these two places, I didn’t think about there’s debate of specifically where to go on each place.
“Why would free space habs predominate? Quality of life. The human organism evolved in a one-g gravity field.”
I’d like to see more emphasis on habitat modules. I’m sure there are serious studies (but have to dig deep or know someone in the know) I mostly see launch vehicles and capsules from usual postings by both Old and New Space.
Thanks. Glad you liked it.
There is indeed a great deal to do. As the total amount of space stuff that gets done inevitably shifts in the private sector direction, we should get more serious attention paid to the considerable “to-do list” of items on which NASA and other government space agencies have made essentially no progress for decades. I am optimistic that in as little as another decade we may reach a point at which what NASA does or doesn’t do no longer has any real relevance to the progress of humanity into space.
I urge, in other words, a sort of “island-hopping” strategy where NASA is concerned, similar to what Nimitz and MacArthur used against the Japanese in WW2. Bypass the strongpoints and let them wither as backwaters.
“which what NASA does or doesn’t do no longer has any real relevance to the progress of humanity into space.”
It seems there are many that all we need to do is get government out of the way (or whatever “Ayd Rand in Space”) and private enterprise will lead the way. Government spending (including DOD) on space (from ISS to cubesats) is a huge portion of the total amount, something VCs are not going to match.
Rather than another big program like Apollo (which leads to more ghost towns), how about more smaller programs of various robotic spacecraft. What’s been buzzing around lately from Sun to Pluto also had many instruments and techniques have to be developed, some great others not so great, at govt expense. Private companies can take a look and see if these places are worthwhile to put up billions.
My article is no libertarian screed. Government is not even really in the way anymore, so getting it out of the way is mostly a non-issue. Government was in the way in the 1980’s, but a lot has changed since then. Now, the government is mainly in its own way. The time-honored way NASA and the legacy contractors do things are the institutional equivalent of tying one’s shoe laces together.
SLS and Orion are really the paradigmatic examples of this. They continue on their slow, pricey, elephantine amble toward… who knows. Certainly not Mars. Probably not even the Moon. Museums if they are fortunate. The boneyard if they are not.
Meanwhile, SpaceX is about to test the Falcon Heavy and in a bit over four months will open the kimono on its long-rumored BFR-MCT-based Mars colonization architecture. The Raptor engines to power this effort are already well into the bend-metal-and-test stage. At that point, we will have both a vision, and even a rough schedule, of what a single company is planning to do in space over two decades or more. And there are other companies, notably Blue Origin, whose own plans will also be made public in steadily greater detail before long.
All this effort is sustainable increasingly independently of whatever NASA does or doesn’t do because it is increasingly paid for by money made supplying commercial interests with launch services.
NASA is, of course, SpaceX’s largest single customer, but the percentage of SpaceX’s gross revenues NASA accounts for diminishes each year. This trend looks to continue.
That is likely to be true even if NASA, at some future point, becomes a customer both for FH-Red Dragon-type landing expeditions on various Solar System bodies and for super-heavy-lift services provided via BFR and/or MCT. Just as NASA may have been the first customer for Falcon 9, it was hardly the last. The same will hold true for SpaceX’s future offerings as well as its current ones. And Blue Origin’s. And…
My article merely sketched out some additional business areas with the potential to start small and grow to potentially Godzilla-esque proportions on a base of lower-cost launch and LEO real estate than presently exists. Once under way, such enterprises can self-fund their own expansion via retained earnings and access to capital markets in conventional ways.
Anything NASA does as a government program, in contrast, will not generate its own on-going capital stream to support operations and future expansion of same. With resources limited by political reality and subject to capricious interdiction every annual appropriations season, all future NASA initiatives will be potential ghost towns just waiting for eviction notices to be posted and the last stagecoach to leave.
NASA has long since lost the ability to do anything quickly. SpaceX and others have reinvented quickness using a business model first developed in the computing and software industries in place of the massive government funded effort NASA built to provide the quickness demanded by the Space Race in the 1960’s. The latter was not sustainable and, so, was not sustained. The former is sustainable.
NASA can still avoid utter marginalization by, as you suggest, concentrating on missions it has always been good at such as unmanned deep space exploration. Even here, though, NASA is vulnerable to being supplanted by commercial NewSpace if it insists on doing everything in the time-honored but limited and expensive way. If NASA persists in putting together exploration missions one at a time, it will likely be quickly overtaken by, say, asteroid mining companies which also have a considerable interest in deep space exploration of particular kinds and who will pursue it on as massive and parallel a scale as they can afford using cheap, mass-produced standard platforms.
NASA cannot remain relevant or perhaps even viable if it does not change. It cannot remain central to the nation’s space efforts for much longer whether or not it changes. Space is just too big and NASA is just too small.
Didn’t realize you are such a big dog, Mr. Eagle… 🙂
No bigness or dogness required. Write something interesting and send it to Jeff. See what happens. I’m certainly no better known on these forums than you are.
I saw an interesting idea developed by a Kerbal Space Program player and I wonder if it’s real-world practical. Basically, a space station with an unused hub docking port. You then use that as the ‘keel plate’, starting point for building a spacecraft out of modules that you stack onto the docking port one after the other. The really cool part of the idea was the cross modules were modified large capacity propellent tanks so, after you’ve finished stacking together the parts, you can just pump pre-delivered prop into the completed spacecraft.
The point of this? Keith is right and new ideas are obviously needed as old ones are (by NASA’s own effective admission) simply aren’t working on cost grounds. The big problem is, of course, that those who are in a position of power and influence are usually in that position because of those old, outmoded ideas; dumping the ideas would inevitably reduce their influence and that is not something that they are likely to do.
This is why I think really innovative ideas are coming from commercial organisations like Blue Origin and SpaceX, who are having to smash their way in from the outside.
Actually, the ideas have been around for decades, and thousands of innovation solutions and approaches to step up to the grand challenges exist throughout the entire community.
What is telling however is that only a few folks with 100Ms outside the USG have been able to advance or smash concepts as Congress guts the R&D for everything but decades old engines and capsules. Do Blue and SpaceX have all the ideas?
8B/yr on SLS/Orion/ISS–you get what you allocate for.
“… “The Martian”. What better way to make sure a Mars ship works than to run it for a year or two in LEO after being assembled from smaller subunits launched by a variety of existing ISS cargo carrier.”
Good start since increasing the flight rate reduces cost. But you must test as you fly, and staying in LEO is not long duration travel in the proper radiation environment; storing, transferring, and prepositioning fuel to reduce LV size and costs, landing heavy objects through an atmosphere, reusing landers and in space tugs, demonstrating the feasibility of ISRU, etc, and be flexible if things do not work out.
Further, one must look at the tall poles in the LOC/LOM and update the initial prototypes. Using common hardware (Dragon) may be one part of the puzzle to demonstrate reliability with a science bonus. Deliver many scientific and mission prototype hardware to numerous destinations…make many LV suppliers happy too! NASA payloads would reduce the combined DOD/NASA launch costs too and likely create new markets …. such an exciting yet flexible future indeed.
Only a few years ago if you had suggested the idea of vertically landing a rocket stage on four little fold out legs like something from an old 1950’s B movie you would literally have been laughed out of the room while being told it was either simply impossible of at best ridiculously expensive. Elon Musk didn’t laugh at the idea, instead his attitude was okay then, everyone seems to think it’s impossible so how do we make it possible, as a result SpaceX can now land it’s F9 1st stage. this in my opinion sums up the clear difference between old and new thinking.
I know the ISS inclination of 51.6 degrees was due to Russia’s launch site latitude. However, it has provided many benefits to the program, in my opinion. There is much greater coverage of Earth’s surface, and much better high resolution photos of all kinds of Earth phenomena, not just those in a narrow band around the equator. Even higher inclinations would probably provide even better science return (not necessarily 90 degrees, maybe 85 or so, but there is a likely an optimum observation inclination for all of Earth’s surface). Yes, you would sacrifice payload mass to orbit, understood. However, the current inclination in not necessarily a bad thing, and should not be used to point fingers at the Russians for imposing it.
I agree. The ISS has huge potential for Earth observation once the Earth obs community gets out of its fixation on unmanned spacecraft in Sun synchronous orbit. The ISS overflies more than 98% of the human race. And satellites are already being launched from the ISS. Space observation next! Technically it has already started with the AMS but I am referring to medium aperture optical/UV/IR astronomy from ISS mounted or co-orbiting payloads. Thanks to a lot of hard work the external vacuum is a lot cleaner on ISS than it was on MIR. Moreover the original plans for the modern space station (i.e. the Space Operations Center) were focused on satellite and spacecraft servicing/fueling and earth and space observation,not microgravity research. And there were plans for both pressurized and unpressurized hangar modules, the former for shirtsleeve work on payloads. Inflatable structures might make this less expensive.
But there’s one more thing. This is an international program, created in part to build trust and understanding between the world powers. The ISS overflies every human launch site in the world, including both Jiuquan and Wenchang. China is the world’s second largest economy, America’s largest overseas trading partner, and one of only two nations with the current ability to launch humans into orbit. There is no excuse for the missing flag.
51.6 was really important because of the Soyuz assured crew return functionality. The USA did not have a crew return capability except when the Shuttle was docked to the ISS.