SLS Reverses NASA Technology Advances
#NASA spent hundreds of millions of dollars to make these reusable engines disposable. Just sayin https://t.co/TSvwQRYkbZ
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) March 22, 2018
These four engines are ready to rumble for Exploration Mission-1! The first flight of #NASASLS and @NASA_Orion will go farther into deep space than any rocket has ever gone.
MORE >> https://t.co/vchcyphema pic.twitter.com/ow1XdDexyA
— NASA_SLS (@NASA_SLS) March 22, 2018
Keith’s note: SpaceX, Blue Origin and ULA are focusing on reusable launch technology while NASA is doing the exact opposite. What do they know that NASA does not? I realize that this is a tweet, but this has to be one of the weirdest things NASA PAO has ever said: “The first flight of #NASASLS and @NASA_Orion will go farther into deep space than any rocket has ever gone.” For starters most of the SLS “rocket” will be dumped into the ocean immediately after launch or will burn up upon reentry and then pieces will land in the Pacific. Second, rockets have been sent out across our solar system – its how we send things to – and then land on Mars for example. So “rockets” have already been “farther into deep space” than SLS will likely go.
“…go farther into deep space than any rocket has ever gone.” What is that supposed to mean? The upper stage of every rocket which launched a planetary mission has gone farther into deep space than any part of EM-1 will go. In fact, since it isn’t leaving the Earth-Moon system, it’s debatable whether or not any part of EM-1 will be going into “deep” space at all.
Hey, they gotta keep up with Elon Musk whose Roadsters is on the way to the asteroids 🙂
Who cares. It sounds cool to the NASA PR folks.
Well, me. And I hope I’m not alone. Telling everyone about the great things you’ve done or the great things you plan to do if fine. But I think people should limit that to the truth. Making cool claims which aren’t true wrecks your credibility, the credibility of everyone else in the field, and just isn’t ethical. But that’s just my opinion and there aren’t all that many people who care about my opinions.
Don’t even get me started about NASA PAO….
Mmm-hmm.
http://www.thespacereview.c…
http://www.thespacereview.c…
Still seething after all these years…
Well, Bob, now I’ve read it and I learned from it. Thank you. I think that the quality of my own space punditry will now improve. In fact I’m a little bit embarrassed that you needed to explain it to me because I should have known better.
I should point out that there are several places in the infosphere that seem to have read these suggestions you made so long ago and taken them at least partially to heart. SpaceX hosted launch webcasts for one.
Bob,
I just finished reading the second article…and thought of something. Even though NASA outreach seems like it has improved since you wrote those links, they are still behind some New Space and even Old Space companies.
Agreeing with you on your conclusions at the end of the second article compels me to factor those elements into the future of SLS in light of upcoming systems of equal or nearly equal capacity and hammer another nail, labeled “Inadequate PR”, into its coffin. SpaceX and Blue Origin clearly get the word out better. ULA is learning and I’m quite sure that once their capsule is flying we’ll see the skilled outreach side of Boeing as well.
Thank you, Bill, for taking the time to read through the entire discussion I offered.
Yes, some here & there (and more so in the private sector thus far) seem to have adopted the tenor of if not always the precise mechanics of my recommendations, which is probably how it should be. I meant to recast thinking vs demand specific means of engagement.
The heart of it all is actually quite simple: we need to tell good stories (the subject matter is out there) that connect the general audience with the folks on the inside…and thereby draw more people INTO the adventure of it all. Enjoying stories, after all, seems to be part of our human DNA.
James Cameron gave an address somewhere (I think prior, even) that said much the same thing. He mostly got ignored too…then was fired from the NASA advisory council by my not-favorite NASA administrator (see in other comments below).
Will the old-guard companies step up to the task alongside the ‘exciting’ new ones? Having formerly worked inside for & amongst them, I am not so sure. But we shall see.
Thanks for caring, and keep at it!
That was a typo. They meant to say it will go farther into deep pockets than any rocket has ever gone.
Let’s not forget that the Orion replaced returning astronauts to land with a good old fashion splashdown and recovery by a Navy task force just as in the good old days 🙂
And when SpaceX wanted to do dry propulsive landings for Dragon, NASA would not let them.
Could you elaborate on “task force”? I’d expect the uncertainty in the splashdown location to be much smaller than it was fifty years ago, and that a single ship would be able to handle the capsule recovery. Are they actually baselining a whole task force?
It has nothing to do with the accuracy of the return, the Apollo capsule were all on target when they returned.
The recovery ship for Orion will be a LSD. LSDs are part of an Expeditionary Strike Group consisting of the LSD, a LHA that is the flagship, often a second LSD, a cruiser, a destroyer, a frigate or two and an attack submarine.
The recovery area for a mission to lunar orbit, or EM L-1, will likely be in the Central Pacific south of Hawaii as in Project Apollo. Now no Admiral is going to send the LSD alone that far from port to do a pickup on a mission this important, that is just not how its done. So the Admiral will go along and where the Admiral goes the Expeditionary Strike Group goes. So it will be a task force just as in the old days.
And of course you could expect there will be a Russian and Chinese trawler tagging along, its what they do, so add another submarine and some Poseidon patrol aircraft to keep track of them. Then let’s not forget the tourists, maybe a cruise ship or two and some chartered flights out of Hawaii. You will need to run herd on them and secure the area. If there is a foreign astronaut aboard that nation will likely send a ship along as well, something big and impressive, suitable to transport their astronaut home in style.
So yes, it will be a show like in the old Apollo days, with helicopters delivering the crew to the LHA, a red carpet, ship’s band, welcoming speech… A return fitting for astronauts exploring the unknown.
Now the Dragon2, since it will be private will likely just be recovered by a salvage ship since the Dragon2 will splashdown near the coast. Unless NASA decides that is not safe. But not the Orion, it’s just not how NASA does things. So add the navy show to the $2 billion cost per Orion flight.
SpaceX already has experience recovering Dragon (version 1) cargo capsules. It’s not like this is new to them. You need a ship with a crane on the deck and not much else. It’s quite the contrast to the US Government way, which will no doubt make a spectacle out of the recovery. After all, they haven’t done a manned space capsule recovery since the mid 1970s.
And another example of the disparity between “gov-think” and, shall we say, “obvious-think”?
I am finding that my own observations are increasingly congruent with those of Dr. Matula.
Troubling, indeed 🙂
When you are paying for the recovery out of your pocket and not using tax payer money you will always use the least expensive option. One thing that will help lower costs on the BFR will be the retirement of the SpaceX Navy.
Crew Dragon recovery test rig
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
By contrast here is a video of a navy exercise in January for recovering the Orion capsule. At nearly 9 tons on weight it has to be towed into the launch bay of the LSD. It is just too heavy to lift it on board.
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
At this point, I have to ask, “why bother?” Since the capsule isn’t reusable, does it really need to be recovered? They could take the crew off (along with any samples they brought down) and just let the capsule sink. There is some engineering value in post-recovery inspection, and they make a nice museum piece. But this seems like quite a bit of work for not very much added value.
But then you wouldn’t have anything left from the $2.5 billion SLS/Orion/Lander that went to the Moon. At least you get the capsule to put on display. Besides, if you let it sink the Chinese or Russian may recover it and learn its technology secrets. Look at how they used photos of the Shuttle Orbiter to produce the Buran.
Now you might be on to something. _Let_ the Russians or the Chinese recover an Orion and copy its technology. That might set their space program back a decade or two.
(Along similar lines, I once heard someone joke that ITAR was about keeping foreign nations from learning how NASA did things, but not because they’d use it. Because of how much our international partners would complain if they found out how we do things.)
“Since the capsule isn’t reusable”
Incorrect.
SpaceX hasn’t made a new Dragon capsule in over a year; all CRS missions to ISS are now Flight Proven™ capsules which have been in the drink and refurbed.
The upcoming CRS-14 mission to ISS is using the CRS-8 capsule and the B1039.2 Flight Proven™ booster from CRS-12.
New upper stage and fairing, and they’re working on fairing recovery and reuse.
I was referring to the Orion Crew Module, not the SpaceX Dragon. Now that I check, there are a few references to making Orion reusable. But I can’t find anything more specific than the use of the adjective since 2013. So I can’t tell is Orion reuse is a theoretical possibility or an actual plan. Looking at the NASA FY19 budget request, I can’t find anything hinting at reuse. It is clear that the Orion capsules for EM-1 through -3 will be new builds, and that nothing is budgeted under Exploration Ground Systems for turning around a previously flown Orion.
But, since you did mention the Dragon, I’m not sure if they’ve built the last cargo version. They have re-flown two (soon to be three), but they have never used the same one three times. By my count, they’ve recovered 14 separate capsules. That includes the original test and demonstration flights, and it isn’t clear how many of the twelve flown-once capsules can be flown again. I’m pretty sure it isn’t 100%.
They are contracted for another thirteen flights. (That’s through 2025, and ISS may not be around after that.) So they will either have to get three or more flights out of some of the Dragons, or build more. Or use Dragon 2s for cargo runs, but it can’t carry as much as the cargo version.
Dragon 1 production ended with CRS-12,
https://www.nasaspaceflight…
A new Dragon 2 “Hatchery” opened in another building. CRS-20 is the last Dragon 1 mission. CRS-21–> will be Dragon 2.
I cannot identify one single act more exemplary of the pitiful state of HSF than a splash down.
Personally I am disappointed that SpaceX was unable to pursue land recovery for the Dragon 2. NASA required multiple land landings to certify the system but would not allow SpaceX to conduct them during ISS cargo return flights because of supposed risk to the (unmanned) cargo. The Dragon 2 still has the Super Draco thrusters and I hope Spacex will test them on ocean recoveries, hopefully until NASA is convinced. We can land a huge booster on land but not a tiny capsule.
I have trouble believing NASA would allow SpaceX to test fire Super Dracos on a Dragon 2 while astronauts were on board. There’s been talk of Bigelow using them, when and if they have a commercial station, and they might allow it. But that’s just talk, as far as I know. I don’t know of any plans for SpaceX to fly their own Dragon 2 missions, independent of a customer. (Well, the translunar tourist trip, but it isn’t clear how real that is.)
The translunar trio is off. NASA’s decision to require water recovery of the Dragon2 has motivated Elon Musk to put all his effort in the BFR. I expect he won’t do anything with Dragon2 other than what is required by NASA or a commercial client for it. Just as he left Falcon 1 behind to focus on Falcon 9, he is doing the same, leaving Dragon behind for BFR. That is just how he works.
The lunar mission sounds like its been moved to BFR/BFS. Refuel BFS with a BFS Tanker in an elliptical orbit and BFS can do a lunar landing and return with no surface refuelling.
Actually, the ship will be traveling by itself.
Really? That far from home port with Russian and Chinese trawlers following it? And tourists ships to keep clear of the landing zone? That may be what NASA believes, but its not how the navy will do it when the time comes in the distant future to recover the first crew flight…
50 miles is not far from home.
You are thinking of the uncrewed orbital test flight. When returning from the Moon or lunar orbit they are not going to risk a splashdown so close to shore. They will move the recovery zone further out.
That was certainly the case for the first few flights, but anything can get routine, and by the end of the program (Skylab and ASTP) they were down to a single assault helicopter carrier, the LPH-11 New Orleans, which did an admirable job, although it would make more sense to land on … land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
But how far were those splashdown from shore. And are you sure the USS New Orleans didn’t have its frigate escorts? That would be unusual, especially in terms of the support they provide for air operations safety.
That’s correct. Additional ships provide a wider area of radar coverage and quicker response when the actual landing area might be changed at the last minute, but are not required as escorts except for combat deployments and training. Peacetime air operations are generally within range of additional helicopters and even boats launched from the carrier, and (in most cases) of land-based SAR forces as well. The Apollo capsules splashed down within sight of the carrier, no more than about ten miles away, and the recoveries were made in daylight and in reasonably good weather. The Apollo 11 recovery sight was changed while the spacecraft was returning from the Moon to avoid a weather front, not a luxury the Navy would have in combat.
Yes, and the escorts are also used to keep the landing area clear of ships and planes. In peace time they still have the role of keeping a buffer zone around the flagship of the Task Force. And it’s pretty standard for every ESG to have an attack submarine in the area as additional security.
Also the safety role is to function as “air guards” to quickly recover the crew of a helicopter or aircraft that lands in the water. It’s hard to turn and manuver a carrier. A following frigate or destroyer is able to reach the craft much quicker, although helicopters also perform that function.
I knew a faculty member who was a retired Captain and he was telling me that when his destroyer was assigned to one of early Gemini recoveries its mission was just to follow the Russian trawler that was following the recovery task force.
You may be right, but I think that is all speculation. Do we actually know anything more about Orion recovery than “water landing”?
Even if the current plan is that grandiose, they could change their minds. The cost of a week of a task force’s time isn’t that much by the standards of SLS (which, in itself, is a bit frightening…) But when people are under pressure over high costs, what really hurts is highly visible spending. It’s something reporters and congressmen can point to, and people can easily comprehend. Esoteric points about the RS-25 engines don’t have the same impact.
So, when the time for recovery comes, and if NASA is getting criticism for the high costs of SLS, they might opt for something more modest. They should have the accuracy to land ten or twenty kilometers off the coast of San Diego and fly the helicopters out Coronado (NAS North Island.) [Correction: San Diego is too far north for a lunar return. Make that Oahu and Pearl Harbor. 21 deg. latitude should be close enough to the equator. Failing that, Guam at 13 deg.] If they can land inside US territorial waters, then they could let the Coast Guard deal with those tourists and Russian trawlers.
You can’t always target as far North as Oahu for lunar returns. It all depends on when you come back, and in the case of an emergency return, the footprint may not be that convenient.
Well, you can’t always target any fixed location for a lunar return. You will have a return window set by when that location is on the ground track. That’s going to be about once per day while Moon is at the same latitude as that recovery site.
There is an annoying 28-year oscillation in the Moon’s inclination, which unfortunately puts Oahu north of the entire ground track for six years (with the next bad season being in the mid 2030s. On the other hand, Hawai’i itself is far enough south that this isn’t a problem. If you wanted to use land-based helicopters for a water recovery, you don’t need a major Navy facility. Just a airport with facilities to support the right sort of helicopters.
For emergencies, operating off a ship doesn’t help. If they are using a LSD (landing ship dock, and an unfortunate acronym), it can only make a around 20 knots. That’s roughly 500 miles per day. That doesn’t add much flexibility in an emergency. With land-based aircraft, you can use any airfield along the ground track (and friendly to the US, and with the right sort of helicopters available.) That’s what aircraft do in an emergency; they land at whatever divert site happens to be close.
Emergencies from a lunar return give you several days to get recovery forces in the area. Orion had a plan (at least in the early days, who knows what NASA is doing now) to have aircraft with rescue divers and equipment available to get to any Orion landing spot fairly quickly. The possible track for landings in the Pacific had southernmost landing areas really, really far south off the coast of Chile. That assumed that for whatever reason, a skip trajectory was impossible and you had to do a direct entry. If you can skip, some returns put you down off of Hawaii, Baja California, etc. Again, as you pointed out, what is possible is in part determined by the current Lunar inclination.
I’m not saying you can’t use a Navy task force (or even a single ship) to recover a returning lunar mission. Apollo certainly demonstrated that. And, with enough ships, you can make sure one will be in the right place (in case of emergency) on a few days notice. How many ships would depend on how many days notice.
But it is practical? We can argue about Hawai’i or Oahu, but the same recovery helicopters can fly off land and there are plenty of costal airfields capable of supporting the recovery. If, in case of emergency, you can’t use the one you planned on, you can pick another. Even assuming specialized trained crews or aircraft, you can get them anywhere in the world faster than you can get a ship.
The main disadvantage I can see with a near-costal landing is those tourists Dr. Matula mentioned. The closer to the coast you are, the more of them will have the resources to sail out and make a pest of themselves.
They did direct returns in Apollo because they felt there was a risk the skips wouldn’t work, they would create too much uncertainty in the recovery zone. I expect that is the plan for Orion as well. The Russians did use skip returns for the Zond and lost one as a result if I recall.
Last I knew, Orion plans on using skip returns.
The Orion capsule is too heavy for the helicopters to lift. The Orion capsule weighs nearly 9 tons, compared to the 5.8 tons of the Apollo capsule. That is why Orion’s capsule will be towed into the landing well of the LSD. Even in the case of the old Apollo capsule they would bring the carrier along side and lift it with a crane on to the deck.
If they land that close to the coast they would just send the LSD out by itself. But remember, this is a lunar return, at 25,000 mph when it hits the atmosphere. You need a good cone of error for safety. You don’t want it coming down in downtown San Diego, it won’t turn out well 🙂
Thanks. It looks like I missed that. There’s quite a bit more information out there about Orion recovery plans (including the January, 2018 drill.)
But two minor points. I think I started off asking about the delivery accuracy, and someone said it was good enough to be a non-issue. That ought to be good enough to land close to a coast without endangering nearby cities. SpaceX lands rockets within twenty or thirty kilometers of densely inhabited areas. The range and speed of a lunar return aren’t an issue; that’s what trajectory correction maneuvers are for. If the Apollo capsules landed “within sight” of an aircraft carrier, then this shouldn’t be an issue. If I lived in San Diego, I’d worry more about how close the approach to the city’s airport comes to downtown.
And, as a trivia item I came across poking around on the web. It’s an LPD not an LSD. LSD-36, USS Anchorage, was decommissioned in 2003. The video you posted of the January drill showed the USS Anchorage, LPD-23, commissioned in 2013. Not that many people actually care about the difference between an LSD and LPD.
If they’re going retro then the astronauts need to carry air conditioner packs like in the old days (I always thought that looked really cool carrying one of those while marching to the astrovan). Oh, and have Navy frogmen jump from a SeaKing and wrap floatation collar around the capsule.
I dont think a water landing is an issue for the US Navy. They have a large workforce and ships. They are always working, always on call. And from my experience they love nothing more than real missions like rescuing astronauts. The issue is that water landings are dangerous. The issue is that water landings make the spacecraft un-reusable. The issue is that it makes recovering experiment samples and specimens that much more difficult and time consuming. The issue is it is very inelegant. It will probably be fine. It will probably be years before anyone drowns. That 1 crew a year will look like heros. Its just it is not opening space to commerce, industry or people.
Bravo Sierra, being flushed – literally.
If BFS makes it to orbit in 2020-2021, then lands on the Moon soon after, the excrement’s going to hit the fan.
I predict closer to 2023-2025 for BFR. Going with Elon’s estimates is wildly optimistic.
It’ll compete (on the screen at least) with EM-2 and EM-3.
EM-5 or so before the slow wheels of government grind SLS to a halt.
Maybe by then FH (and others) will be the moon rocket and BFR (and maybe others) for Mars.
2020 for a BFR/S orbital flight isn’t Musk’s estimate, it’s Gynne Shotwell’s and she’s usually more conservative. That and they have 2 BFR factories in the works; Port of LA’s Terminal Island and (NSF report) KSC.
Keith,
Don’t you mean “What do they know that NASA used to know?”
If you think about it the entire NASA approach since Columbia has been ass-backwards. First you had a know nothing Gehman committee which found that the entire strategy, plan and architecture established by the true and well experienced pioneers of human spaceflight at the height of the moon program was wrong. So here was a committee with zero experience trashing the work of the people who had spent a lifetime dreaming, thinking, planning and succeeding. Then you had the NASA people in an uproar that ‘damn it, we have to go somewhere and do something because Earth orbit is boring’. No signs of intelligence there. Then you had an Administrator decide, without a strategy or a plan or a budget, to build Apollo on steroids for which his chosen launch vehicle did not work. He guessed we would figure it out eventually.Then the Apollo-style vehicle put ESA in the critical path building a service module with a propulsion system that really cannot do any mission anyone might like to do, like lunar orbit or Mars. Really if you thought Apollo was dangerous because of lack of redundancy, which was the reason the pioneers decided to terminate Apollo before we lost a crew, Orion is more dangerous still. They established the vehicles, capsule and launçh vehicles without ever establishing programmatic requirements. Now they are trying to come up with a mission for which maybe they can use their far too expensive, far too unsafe capsule. And if you thought a spaceship with experiments in Earth orbit is boring, think about one in which they can barely fit a crew and supplies hanging out in the middle of nowhere for no particular reason! Spending the entire human spaceflight budget on one flight every couple of years! And Gerst says the US is leading! Where? Back to the dark ages? Ive been asked what do I think of the “program”. There is no Program, there is no plan, there is no architecture, there is no goal, there is no strategy, and the vehicle being built at tremendous expense is fairly useless.
And, with this ministation that has no purpose, leads nowhere, and sits in the middle of no place-they needed a name so the PR people named it “the Gateway”. NASA has become stupidity squared.
What NASA people in an uproar?
General outcry after Columbia. Basically they were saying flying in Earth orbit wasn’t worth the astronaut’s lives; they should have been “exploring”.
SpaceX will host a cocktail party in orbit to observe the first Orion launch by SLS.
They could just stream live video of the launch, as seen from orbit.
Yes, and then also provide live video of their flight around the Moon and return to Earth.
That would be rubbing it in. I was thinking of something apparently neutral with a subtext of looking down on the NASA approach.
In reality the way that SLS keeps slipping I don’t think that first crew flight will ever happen as it will be game over for NASA as soon as Elon Musk lands a BFR on the Moon. Just as the Russian Moon program folded after Apollo 11, the NASA one with the SLS/Orion/LOP-G/Lander will too.
The fun will be watching the Congressional Hearing with the Congress Critters competing with each other in pointing fingers at who to blame that will position the Congress (and American taxpayers) as the victims of misleading infornation. I do pity the poor NASA officials at the time who will draw the short straws especially since the ones who created SLS/Orion/LOP-G/Lander will be retired.
If not sure how entertaining those congressional hearings would be. The easy way out would be to complement NASA rather than blaming themselves or NASA. How hard is it to say, “NASA was doing a great job of getting America back to the Moon, but them a private, American came along and did a truly fantastic job of it”? That wouldn’t be convincing to people who knew the details, but for Fox News or CNN probably wouldn’t dig that deep.
Maybe; but the cost spread between the system will cast a very long shadow. Remember the $500 hammer? (or something).
This is the kind of story that headline-grabbers love.
What would be your timeline for SpaceX landing the second stage BFS on Luna?
Likely between the first BFS LEO mission and the first Cargo BFS to Mars. Shotwell said about 2020 for LEO BRS, and the NET for cargo to Mars is about 2022. Most likely both unmanned at first.
That will be amusing. Since the SLS is known as the Senatorial Launch System after some senators from FL & AL proscribed the SLS components and their suppliers. The Orion and LOP-G all stemmed from the need to fund something as SLS payloads.
NASA doesn’t spend money to make rockets, they make rockets to spend money.
Congress does not vote to appropriate funding for NASA to build rockets, they fund NASA to bring jobs to their district.
Launch rate is the issue here. http://Www.robert-w-jones.com
Don’t forget expense.
All of you keep blaming NASA for the present situation. I keep reading how so many of you on here disparage the agency and how things are done. Don’t get me wrong, a lot has to change. But the bottom line is that we are beholden to the folks in DC, and their interests. How the money keeps flowing to districts and special interests.
We can hem and haw all we want about what we want to do. But until Congress is fixed, nothing changes.
No, sorry, but in this case NASA went of half cocked, threw away the plan and architecture decided on in 1970, threw away Shuttle, wanted to throw away ISS, and set out on a path to Apollo on steroids which gets no one anyplace. Congress came in with SLS and keeping Orion when NASA came up with no other options.
Nick,
Your suggested knowledge of history is seriously corrupted. The 1970’s ‘decided-on architecture’ was a proposal shot down by the Nixon White House (and Congress wouldn’t have funded it anyway); Shuttle was the only element that was approved…and way too many folks forgot over the years that it was in fact just one initial component of said architecture. The Bush administration (collectively forgetting same) made the decision to discontinue Shuttle following the Columbia accident and their recognition of the obvious: that NASA’s budget wouldn’t EVER surge beyond where it had been for decades as a tiny percentage of the federal budget. And when exactly did NASA want to ‘throw away’ ISS? As for NASA supposedly not coming up with other options before SLS & Orion, the Obama administration was responsible for shaping the post-Constellation strategic void with their flexible path (recommended by yet another committee/panel) which promised to go everywhere and nowhere simultaneously.
tutiger is correct: NASA is beholden to whichever administration is in charge at any given time as well as to the Congress and their individual partisan interests. AND…sometimes when an administration-appointed (and Congress-approved) NASA Administrator has his own ideas (the Apollo on Steroids episode you cite, which itself was woven mightily out of congressional dictates) the agency finds itself on a self-destructive path because one person is convinced that they know ‘the way’.
Unfortunately, that’s how Washington operates and NASA is part of the Washington scene. It is actually a wonder that NASA achieves anything of substance at all. Perhaps the closest things got to a coherent exploration strategy was the initial VSE when all the stars seemed to align across this milieu…briefly, until circumstances derailed even that far-seeing strategy…in part, sadly, due to NASA’s own actions following that momentous change in administrators from an actual seasoned govt administrator to a rocket scientist.
Propose something concrete that can be implemented inside the framework of the mess that is and likely always will be Washington—instead of ragging on inside your mis-perceived historical record—and perhaps your voice will be listened to. Until then, I recommend reading up on actual history.
I don’t see how the Bush Administration had any choice other than to wind up Shuttle after Columbia given fundamental flaws in the architecture. We’re pretty lucky we didn’t lose a third orbiter before ISS was complete and every additional launch was rolling the dice yet again.
The CAIB report however said that Shuttle could be operated safely until a replacement was in service, and indeed following Columbia the foam problem was greatly improved, and had the Shuttle been on an ISS mission the leading edge damage would have been obvious.
More presciently, the CAIB report included conceptual drawings of the orbital Space Plane and said that the Shuttle replacement should be designed solely for access to LEO (like the current Commercial Crew Program) since to safely accomplish a more ambitious goal directly (Like Constellation or SLS/Orion or DSG) would require more money than the country is willing to commit on a long term basis.
Bob,
I think you are the one who is confused. Space advocates have thought since the 1800s that the ‘architecture’ needed to be routine and affordable rocket travel with an orbiting habitat and depot first, and then to progressively move further away from Earth. That was iterated by Tsiolkovsky and reiterated by von Braun and by Seamans and Mueller in the late 1960s and by Low, Marks and Beggs in the 1980s. If you couldn’t do those things you weren’t going to have a supportable program. In 1969 the Agnew committee and Thomas Paine, in the midst of the 3 month long moon fever, proposed a Shuttle, a Station and a subsequent Mars mission (in the 1980s). No one accepted the Agnew/Paine recommendations and particularly not their required budget. Nixon decided something less than 1% of the federal budget for a program that promised no certain returns was about all that could get by without complaints by Congress and the US people.
NASA decided on Shuttle first. Without Shuttle they had no launch vehicle and nothing to carry people into orbit since Saturn had been shut down by Johnson 5 years earlier. They would start working on a station after Shuttle was in operation. The best you could do with even a Saturn V, they reasoned, was something like Skylab, which still required a logistics and expansion capability which meant you still needed a Shuttle.
NASA also decided on the Shuttle configuration. It did not preclude improving upon it or enhancing it, but the configuration they decided upon was operating with minimal delays and on budget.
Lest you forget it was the NASA Administrator who said Shuttle and Station had been mistakes and that collectively the only real goal was a Mars mission. Bush got advice from a lot of scared NASA managers after Columbia-they were mainly scared because not a one of them had ever designed or developed anything. They were all “operators”. It was the NASA Administrator that shaped post-Shuttle Constellation plans which are not much different than current plans. Except that Griffin also wanted to stop station to use its budget for Ares V and then a Moon lander. With still no substantial increase in budget anticipated, just as predicted in 1971, NASA still cannot afford a full up moon mission. The best they can do is this expensive kluge Orion/SLS and they are now hoping for a new mini station somewhere in the middle of nowhere, they call the Gateway. That is a new one for everybody because it is such a hair-brained scheme no one ever thought of it previously.
Nick,
Much closer to reality with your elaborations on the NASA side…but you are painting the picture as if (or nearly as if) NASA was operating in a policy vacuum. As much as its employees might wish it could, NASA can’t and never has.
Exactly who in the 1800s proposed space exploration via ‘an orbital habitat and depot first’ or even ‘routine and affordable rocket travel’? Certainly not Mr. Hale; have you actually read his work? And remember that Mr. Verne employed a cannon while Mr. Wells invented an anti-gravity metal.
To suggest glibly that ‘NASA decided on the Shuttle configuration’ is an over-simplification to the point of comedy. I suspect now (given your further comments) that you know better.
I am certainly no fan of what unfolded under the purview of the 2nd Bush admin’s 2nd administrator, but blaming the entire agency for his particular strongly imposed actions hardly conveys an accurate picture of what took place. Many folks might have quit in protest…but would that have changed much? I doubt it.
As for your characterization of Gateway, you seem to be forgetting that a lunar station was part of the original architecture on the way outward. While someone may end up twisting DSG into something else, at its core it is meant to be the first step toward the establishment of that lunar-oriented waypoint station. Let us hope that in spite of Washington realities it remains true to that purpose.
SLS/Orion is unmistakably a kluge. But who is its actual author?
Actually I’d have to disagree on several points.
NASA has generally gotten what it wanted within reason. They actually have to put forward some logic and a plan and they have to sell the plan. As I pointed out, Shuttle and Station were according to a NASA plan. Apollo was according to a NASA plan. It was achieved a few years before they anticipated in 1958 but it was not that it was unexpected.
Tsiolkovsky proposed space habitats and rocket transportation starting in the 1870s.
As far as Shuttle, I believe that the double delta/external tank version was exactly what NASA and the program manager decided was best based on aerodynamics and technology. SRBs were a cost savings but also simplified the system tremendously especially as they were simply a copy of the USAF Titan booster design. Where NASA went wrong on Shuttle was never improving on it. They never brought forward any ideas to improve on it.
I don’t blame the entire agency for Dr. Griffins errors, but I do blame poor managers at every level who failed to identify the program plans and requirements and to verify that the technological capabilities of the planned hardware met the requirements.
Gateway is not the depot/base that was envisioned in Constellation, and the Constellation plan made little sense in the first place.
SLS/Orion is an answer because NASA failed to put forward any answers or even recommendations.
“Space advocates have thought…that the ‘architecture’ needed to be routine and affordable rocket travel with an orbiting habitat and depot first, and then to progressively move further away from Earth.”
“Hey Ganders! Cya!”
Importantly, space policy is formulated based on available technology.
Until the advent of efficient — and very large — jet engines, Ganders was a must-stop on the way to Europe. Gas-guzzling (and beautiful!) 707s were replaced by, for instance, the 747 (among others).
Similarly, the notion that more Moon-direct or Mars-direct were enabled by gargantuan rockets simply wasn’t seen until recently. These new machines obviate space stations.
You may point out that even so fuel depots make sense, and that is true. But programmatically space stations have been hugely decremented.
I believe we are simply in “rethink” mode on space stations. Until now we have thought of them in terms of a station holding less than a dozen. With the kind of heavy lift envisioned coming online stations are going to be more like in the thousand(s). Babylon 5 was 250,000 but the station on DS9 it was about 1200 and was an ore processing station. When you see what is happening with 3d printing ..
Have you seen this video yet?
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
Vlad: I could not agree with you more on the ‘re-think’ comment.
In fact, our great country is in the midst of a very long conversation about the direction we want to go (I’ve made this point before, sorry for being boring!)
Boiled down, the conversation is Big vs. Small. And it applies to space policy as well.
I have to disagree with you on this. Insofar as humans will one day proliferate through the solar system and beyond (which I believe they will), way stations in Earth orbit are a logical first step. Personally I believe ISS is a foothold. I am all for private and commercial development and if Mr. Musk can go directly to Mars, all that much more power to him, but a lot of work remains to be done on systems for long duration human space flight, and ISS remains a good place to continue this work. Even if the requirements are for centrifuge based habitats or radiation shielding or advanced power, propulsion or life support systems, ISS can support all of these. In typical NASA fashion, they will want to throw it away and start over with something new and different. Its time NASA learn some lessons from its past deficiencies..
Nick:
I take your point: much basic research is in front of us as we transition to a space-inhabiting species.
Many errors will be made.
But consider, if you will: does the presence of a device like BFR change the equation? This rocket does far more than furnish a new space station with fewer trips, doesn’t it?
There’s the apocryphal story attributed to Henry Ford; purportedly he said, in response to a question about allowing his customers more choices when they buy his cars, something like “had I asked them, they would have asked for a faster horse!”
I’ve surely mangled the story, but the analogy remains. Why, for instance, conduct low gravity research on orbit? Wouldn’t a nice, rock-solid foundation on Luna do a far better job? More examples are legion.
As to ‘footholds’: yes, I believe footholds make sense, but isn’t Luna a foothold for the rest of the solar system?
Our thinking has been totally informed by low-capacity, throwaway, and hugely expensive rockets. Those days are over. It will be painful and it is completely exhilarating!
Something like BFR would change some of the equations, but not all of them. Your earlier point about the 707 versus 747, and having stop in Ireland rather a non-stop to London, was a good one. But we actually still transport cargo on container ships and need facilities like the Ports of Oakland and Baltimore. For something like Earth-Mars (or Earth-asteroid) cargo, I see a lot of advantages for solar electric propulsion. Given the low-thrust nature of those rockets, you wouldn’t want to take them any closer to a planet than absolutely necessary (a distant lunar orbit, for example.) That implies facilities for fueling, maintenance and cargo transfer.
If someone will pay for a new, large space station, that is less expensive to operate, then I am all for it. But ISS is in orbit today and offers capabilities today for marginal additional costs. So is the idea to throw what we have today away so that maybe at some point in the future someone will pay for a new toy?
That was what NASA did with Shuttle. NASA and the US taxpayer has spent a lot of money but so far no replacement for Shuttle’s capabilities is in sight.
Is a lunar base substitutable for a space station? I’d have to say no, because they are different environments, different locations. Are there things people would like to do in Earth orbit? Probably. In weightlessness? Probably. Large space bases or depots in Earth orbit? A lot of people have said yes these might be more desirable than moon bases. No one has really studied this since the 1970s.
Sure BFR enables a larger chunk to be placed into orbit at a time or to be sent to the moon. Does it mean that the new replacement station can be built less expensively? I know aerospace costing models are based on mass and system complexity. Larger system, more expensive. More complexity, more expensive. BTW this is not the same as NASA development expense. I am convinced that several people in this thread have it exactly right, and that NASA exists to spend and spread money, not to build rockets and spaceships.
A lot of money has been spent on ISS. That money is now water under the bridge. But ISS is there today, and it ought to be used and improved upon. Or would you prefer to throw the asset away without having used it so we can go on to build something new and different in a different place? That was what we heard from Griffin and Constellation and Orion and SLS advocates for the last 15 years. That is more of the NASA mindset; they do not want to use space, conduct research in space, inhabit space; explore space, colonize space. NASA human space flight engineers want to design and build new things; the reason does not matter. NASA astronauts want to go to new places. No more reason required beyond a new experience for that handful of heros. Based on these philosophies, NASA’s money is spent on the ground so who cares what they design or build?
NASA continues to spend a lot of money on ISS. Why? I think a lot of the money goes into the ground operators operating ISS from the ground. With computer technology and AI, I think upgrades could seriously reduce the cost of operations.
“that’s how Washington operates and NASA is part of the Washington scene”
Actually, this is the way a democracy works. If you want something different then get different representatives.
(Please don’t nit-pick me here on ‘democracy’ as a form of government)
I’ll digress to the point of saying this isn’t inherent to democracy. The one district per representative, first past the post, system is a particular sort of democracy. You can do it in different ways, and that isn’t even too unusual at the local level. Boulder has city council elections where there can be five positions open, a dozen or so people running, and the jobs go to the five who get the most votes.
What’s my point? Well, that sort of democracy means someone could, potentially, be elected with the solid support of 5 to 10% of the voters. They would be a minority in the legislature, but their views would be represented there. The current system sort of rules out diversity of opinions. In terms of government space policy, that would encourage small, minor parties. It’s conceivable one might have more interest in space than just assuring the funding continues to flow to the right districts. (And the down side, as you will probably point out, is that extremists with 13% of the vote also get representation, as AfD did last year in Germany.)
The particulars of districts and voting pale in importance to the necessity of fairness. Currently, we have a minority that has managed to lock itself into authority.
The future looks very bleak.
The Constellation Architecture which is the root cause of this mess was largerly the result of Dr. Griffin decision that it was more fun to play Chief Engineer than do his job as Administrator. So instead of working on lining up Congressional support he focused on designing rockets instead. His decision to use Shuttle legacy hardware as extensively as possible was the basic problem with both Project Constellation and SLS/Orion follow on. Congress accepted NASA’s decisions, and testimony, in those areas and then just funded them instead of questioning there validity.
wasn’t O’Keefe replaced and the senate brought in Griffin SPECIFICALLY to do exactly what he did? Utah wanted the SRB’s, LA wanted michoud building tanks, etc etc etc ..
When you look at the FLO design that griffin worked on they had a decade of data on SRB’s already from the space shuttle, in that he specifically said NO to srb’s both to expensive and dangerous .. once the senate confirmed him he immediately reversed himself on using them..
Griffin and Scott Horowitz, the Associate Administrator for ATK Thiokol, sorry “Exploration Systems.”
The RS-25 was painstakingly designed to be reusable for at least 50 missions, and to have the highest possible ISP. On the negative side it is a very expensive engine to produce, possibly $70 million each if new ones are ever made. Also unfortunate was the choice of hydrogen for the core stage fuel; during the initial part of the flight thrust is limiting rather than ISP and hydrogen requires larger engines and a larger fuel tank to produce a given thrust than RP-1 or methane.
Without the ability to relight them, they’re only reusable onboard a space plane…unless they like salt water. 😉
SLS was designed when SpaceX was a laughing stock over their plans to relight and power-land rockets.
Still, it is a waste.
Just one more nail in the SLS coffin.
(Looks around for the lid)
Restarting the engines and a propulsive landing, and splashing down in the ocean aren’t the only alternatives. ULA may have changed their minds, but I’m fairly sure they are planning to reuse the engines on the Vulcan launch vehicle. That’s not a restart and fly back; it’s a (or was) supposed to be a process of detaching, reentering with a heat shield/ parachute/ helicopter catch before hitting ground. That’s supposed to be more efficient than flying back the entire first stage. I suspect that means efficiency in terms of mass to orbit, not in terms of operational costs.
According to Tory Bruno. The ULA SMART engine pod retrieval scheme is schedule after ULA get the Vulcan online follow by the introduction of the ACES to replace the Centaur V as the upper stage sometime in the late 2020s,
So the early Vulcans LVs are totally expendable, just cheaper than the Atlas V.
ULA will struggle playing with SpaceX and Blue in the launch market game. It is telling that there are no orders taken on the upcoming Vulcan launcher by comsat providers. While Blue already sign up firm commercial contracts.
With Blue Origin now targeting national security launches ULA has a bigger problem than before, especially if OATK pulls the trigger on NGL.
http://aviationweek.com/spa…
Parachute retrieval of the two booster engnes of the older Atlas (which separated at a lower altitude) was proposed back in the 80’s by Thiokol and turned down by Lockheed, and was not considered in the Atlas V development, so my guess is that it is a response to the new popularity of reusability. How the total cost will compare with SpaceX remains unclear. The Atlas cost is reduced by the ability to use all the liquid propellant for the launch, but increased by the need for SRBs for many payloads.
I have yet to look but there must be some very interesting and educating material of those who designed those engines. Beginning in 1972 (probably many design tradeoffs prior) to STS-1 with all the triumphs, foibles, and painstakingly all-nighters. I’ve read those turbo pumps are incredible by themselves.
Speaking of painstakingly, I remember in 1979 or so when ABC 20/20 had feature about Shuttle, film crew was in control room for an SSME test. There were delays and it all looked totally disorganized, they ask test manager what the delays were (he never gave a straight answer). But I believe this is typical with so many systems and various items in the food chain (plumbing, electrical, software) to get it to work the first time can be very tedious. All that trial and error to work things out so those engines come to life with minimum fuss on a actual Shuttle flight. I guess it is like how laws and sausages are made.
A shame to see them plop in the ocean.
I must admit that I did get a laugh at the witty rejoinders by Keith and others to to the NASA SLS twitter post. I think that is what the kids today call “throwing shade”…and it was well done. 🙂
A very interesting interview with Senator Nelson if you are looking for some laughs…
http://interactive.satellit…
Senator Nelson on the Way Forward to a Sustainable
Space Future
“And I think Falcon Heavy has a lot to offer for both national security and civil space launches as NASA and the Air Force work with SpaceX to figure out how best to take advantage of its capability. But when you
need to send very large items to distant destinations, like with crewed
interplanetary vehicles, you really need a Saturn 5 class launcher, and
that’s where SLS comes in. And I don’t think there’s commercial demand for such a huge vehicle right now — the government is likely to be the only customer for the foreseeable future.”
Yes, it is just too small… And no mention of the BFR. Also when did the Moon get reclassified as a planet?
And also in regards to Rep. Bridenstine.
“So the agency was restructured so that the head of the mission
directorates, the agency chief engineer, the chief of safety for the agency, and other technical authorities all report to the administrator. And when it comes to safety of flight decisions, they must bring dissenting voices and opinions to the head of the agency. The NASA administrator must understand the complex technical issues, weigh the risk, and make the decision to go or no go. Now, for the first time in history, we’ve got three new human space flight systems we are developing concurrently, and we’ve still got the ISS that we must continue to fly safely. By law, the NASA administrator is personally responsible and accountable for the safety of flight of these systems. So this is not simply a matter of being picky. I believe it is quite literally a matter of life or death.
Given all of this, I feel very strongly that Congressman Bridenstine does not havthe right background or qualifications to lead NASA. “
Yea, what would a qualified carrier pilot know about risks and safety…
Well, Ptolemy did count the Sun and Moon as “planets.” That is, as celestial bodies which move with respect to the fixed, background stars. Maybe NASA (or Mr. Nelson) is even more retro than you thought.
At least Nelson stuck to something with a resemblance of the truth, instead of blatant lies such as “Heavy lift is like aircraft carrier and only national government can own it”.
As much as I complain about NASA’s inefficiency, waste, and backwards thinking a lot of that is driven by Congress. The SLS is the rocket that Congress wants, not NASA. We elected Congress. It’s our rocket. Want a better rocket? Find better leadership.
And you just hit the nail right on the head with that one.
Unfortunately, that isn’t going to work. On people’s top ten list of issues, very, very few people have the space program above number five. Even if _everyone_ disagreed with what Congress was doing regarding SLS, you’d still see the same people getting reelected. People are voting over the economy, immigration, foreign policy, military spending, not being a career politician, etc., etc.
Boldly moving forward because we can’t find reverse… NASA
Well, it seems to me that they meant to say, “The first flight of #NASASLS and @NASA_Orion will go farther into deep space than any “MAN RATED SPACECRAFT” (NOT rocket) has ever gone.” Just real bad editorial control, but nothing to pull our hair out about…
“man” rated?
Good point. I was using “man” as in “mankind”. Human rated if you like.
By all of 12% farther, and with no onboard? Even so, I’d have to check which Atlas and Titan configurations launched some of the early planetary missions. The same lower stages were definitely used for Mercury and Gemini and would have been man (or person) rated. In practice, when any PIO or PR person says “farthest” (or any other “est”), there’s almost always an implied, “…that I remember; I didn’t bother to look it up.”
Wow!!! So they’re sending Orion out past Voyager? Cool! 😉