Discussion Journey to Mars

[MaverickSawyer]

Sure, but R&D isn't really bad. After all good R&D by NASA helps the US spaceflight industry.

What I rather complain about is that the Orion capsule will just poke into deep space, and require lots of infrastructure on Earth, instead of getting more infrastructure into space to expand the range of smaller simpler spacecraft.

Remember, NASA has to bow to the will of Congress, and guess who they (in theory) bow to? Their constituents. So, there is an incentive for NASA to have as many jobs as possible, spread out as much as possible.

And I think this should be the goal of NASA, improving the access of the USA to space.

That's not NASA's objective, and it never will be, especially with the conservatives in charge right now. They want to privatize everything.

 

[richfororbit]

The Head of state is also the first to receive NASA updates. It isn't quite the military, but sure is a brief for the office holder.

Yes, the journey to Mars will be an orbital mission, this was the previous office holder's view, he was the one that announced it back almost seven years ago. And some point after an actual landing would possibly be next.

 

[K_Jameson]

What I rather complain about is that the Orion capsule will just poke into deep space, and require lots of infrastructure on Earth, instead of getting more infrastructure into space to expand the range of smaller simpler spacecraft. And I think this should be the goal of NASA, improving the access of the USA to space.

OK but this is not possible if you spend all your money reinventing the wheel every time.

 

[Urwumpe]

OK but this is not possible if you spend all your money reinventing the wheel every time.

Yes, but this is some sort of what Orion does. It is an improvement to the technology of capsules. But then, it does not change much of the capabilities of a manned spacecraft. We had been there before. It only makes it more user-friendly or more capable in details, but does not redefine the capsule.

 

[K_Jameson]

The problem IMHO isn't that Orion is a capsule, but that we have lost 30 years chasing the dream of a super-spaceplane "jack of all trades".
A capsule is a reliable, proven and (at least on paper) cheap solution for assuring BLEO flight. Orion replicates Apollo. If this is the way they chosen, it should have been followed even with the launcher as much as possible, IMHO.

 

[Urwumpe]

The problem IMHO isn't that Orion is a capsule, but that we have lost 30 years chasing the dream of a super-spaceplane "jack of all trades".

Of course, you won't hear me say "lost 30 years". I am spaceplane evangelist. :lol:

But seriously, I already notice a lot in spaceflight news and plans: The shuttle is already missed. Much earlier than I expected.

 

[K_Jameson]

Of course, you won't hear me say "lost 30 years". I am spaceplane evangelist. :lol:

It was a truly fantastic machine.
But still a waste of money and time. Too ahead of its time. But I don't want to go even more offtopic.

 

[Urwumpe]

It was a truly fantastic machine.
But still a waste of money and time. Too ahead of its time. But I don't want to go even more offtopic.

Yeah, otherwise you will quickly see me turn my glass of beer upside down and shout "What did you just say about my spacecraft, canned food?" :lol:

I agree, the Shuttle was a lot of too ahead of its time in MANY aspects and badly managed, it never got the chance to get past its childhood diseases.

But then - I really like the plans that NASA had before Challenger. Like building a space station to assemble spacecraft in space. Or to have an infrastructure to get many payloads to the moon and back without huge boosters. It was visionary, but sadly at the wrong time.

 

[K_Jameson]

A thing that comes in my mind is that the Energia-Buran was the ideal design. If Shuttle had the same design, now, with the orbiter discarded, NASA would still have its heavy launcher at virtually zero cost (apart of the mere production of the hardware) and could concentrate on developing the exploration tools that are needed in pair with Orion.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, I am not sure if this makes sense. I think commercial providers could also do the HLV job. It requires no crew training, no special safety, no government in first place. Even if the only customer is the government.

But the shuttle really needs its payload bay as work platform. Its not the best choice for simply getting cargo somewhere, but if you need to assemble a spacecraft or a space station, the Shuttle is really unique. So, it makes sense to have it - even if it is not the best choice for hauling cargo.

Maybe a lifting body version with a similar sized payload bay could be a better choice for exploration missions.

 

[K_Jameson]

Well, I am not sure if this makes sense. I think commercial providers could also do the HLV job. It requires no crew training, no special safety, no government in first place. Even if the only customer is the government.

The only commercial superheavy launcher that has some chance to see the launch pad in the near future is the Falcon Heavy. That remains far behind SLS in terms of sheer performances. Oh and to me Musk is not the Savior and I don't believe to some miraculous estimates about the costs.
If the US government wants his superlauncher, to me a strict derivative of STS (sidemount, inline Jupiter-style... you choose) would had more sense than the current SLS project. But... by now this is the way and I can only hope that in some way they will find the manner to flesh out the launch manifest that currently is fairly risible.

But the shuttle really needs its payload bay as work platform. Its not the best choice for simply getting cargo somewhere, but if you need to assemble a spacecraft or a space station, the Shuttle is really unique. So, it makes sense to have it - even if it is not the best choice for hauling cargo.

Maybe a lifting body version with a similar sized payload bay could be a better choice for exploration missions.

Here is the spaceplane evangelist that talk
I don't think that a Shuttle-like spacecraft is the only or the better choice if you want to assemble something in orbit. In fact, the entire design of the Shuttle was wrong in first place, precisely because of that gigantic and unusable cargo bay, dictated by DoD requirements.

Separation of cargo and crew is more rational in my understanding. A launcher without that rigid configuration, that can fly manned or unmanned as needed. A far, far smaller spaceplane for crew only. Automated and/or manned orbital tugs for the dirty work. And so on. A more scalable and modular approach.
And for BLEO exploration, I see the capsule yet beyond the spaceplane.

 

[Urwumpe]

In fact, the entire design of the Shuttle was wrong in first place, precisely because of that gigantic and unusable cargo bay, dictated by DoD requirements.

Unusable? I think history really proves you wrong.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

The only commercial superheavy launcher that has some chance to see the launch pad in the near future is the Falcon Heavy.

*cough cough* New Glenn *cough*

 

[K_Jameson]

Unusable? I think history really proves you wrong.

The Shuttle was doomed by the cargo bay.
Besides DoD spy satellites, the heaviest cargo ever transported by a Shuttle was the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, just under 23 tons. That was one of the few instances of a near complete saturation of the orbiter payload capability. Normally it flew with the cargo bay half empty, especially in the ISS resupply missions. And in most cases it was filled with payloads that could have been launched with traditional launchers, only to justify its use (Galileo? C'mon!). At least until ISS, the Shuttle was... a shuttle to nowhere.
And even if had flew every time with the cargo bay full... 25 tons of payload for a launch system that has almost the same power of the Saturn V is ridicolous...

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------

*cough cough* New Glenn *cough*

Paper rocket, for now.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Paper rocket, for now.

Yet you said "near future". Define "Near" in this case.

 

[K_Jameson]

this decade? :hmm:
Really I don't know the estimates about New Glenn's first launch. Maybe they are far ahead of what I think!

 

[Urwumpe]

The Shuttle was doomed by the cargo bay.
Besides DoD spy satellites, the heaviest cargo ever transported by a Shuttle was the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, just under 23 tons.

That is what you are doing wrong: You measure utility by plain payload mass. Yes, for that a HLV would do loops around a Shuttle.

But the payload bay was more. It was a large volume protected during reentry, much bigger than anything we have today. The ability to bring 25 tons back to Earth was never really used, but even a MPLM or a SPAS platform was much huger than we have today.

The payload bay was a huge EVA platform. You had everything you need in it. From flood lights, over a RMS, airlock, to storage for absurd amounts of EVA tools. It provided a very stable and good platform there, which made the work for astronauts much easier than anything we had before. Only the ISS exceeds this today.

And yes, it was also a very good room for experiments. The SRTM mission might today be solved different, but back then, the shuttle was the best platform for it.

 

[K_Jameson]

Surely the return capability is the only real thing we miss. But in a costs/benefits relationship, maybe the return of a single Shuttle with a MPLM is not much better than the return of two or three Dragons. The return of other payloads retrieved in orbit (damaged satellites) was proven uneconomical.

Your final statement is the key: Only the ISS exceeds it. With the Shuttle they wanted a spaceship that can do everything. A sort of small space station. And a cargo. And an interplanetary launcher. And an orbital builder. And a DoD platform. And a vehicle for returning payloads. All this put together leads to design compromises. And these compromises leads to a beautiful machine, an incredibly attrattive and evocative spaceship, but ultimately inefficient, unsafe, oversized in most cases, and with an astronomical cost per pound.

The technical achievements of the Shuttle still remains. Even leaving aside the rest, the SSME engine, alone, is a real marvel. Almost unbelievable they succeeded in this with the '70 technology.

 

[MaverickSawyer]

this decade? :hmm:
Really I don't know the estimates about New Glenn's first launch. Maybe they are far ahead of what I think!

They're currently building the assembly facility in Florida, and the engines should see their first fully assembled, full power tests this year. As for first flights, I'd say that the first test flight will be within 5 years. Operational flight, another two to three years after that.

 

[K_Jameson]

They're currently building the assembly facility in Florida, and the engines should see their first fully assembled, full power tests this year. As for first flights, I'd say that the first test flight will be within 5 years. Operational flight, another two to three years after that.

Happy if they succeed, we'll see. The first launch date announced for Falcon Heavy was 2013...