Neil Armstrong Speaks out on Constellation...

[PeZook]

For a claimed 100 million dollars (or one-sixth of what is costs to launch the space shuttle) you can have this little beauty: The Black Colt

Can they do orbital flights on this kind of shoestring budget? Neither Virgin Galactic nor SpaceX has suitable boosters or ships. Their achievements are awesome, but they hardly "put NASA to shame".

The Mercury program cost about 2.8 billion in 2008 dollars. That's for 29 launches (20 robotic, 9 manned) and the R&D for the rockets, or 96,5 million per launch. Hardly the bloated government program everyone tries to portray it as.

[eion]

For a claimed 100 million dollars (or one-sixth of what is costs to launch the space shuttle) you can have this little beauty: The Black Colt

Can they do orbital flights on this kind of shoestring budget? Neither Virgin Galactic nor SpaceX has suitable boosters or ships. Their achievements are awesome, but they hardly "put NASA to shame".

The Mercury program cost about 2.8 billion in 2008 dollars. That's for 29 launches (20 robotic, 9 manned) and the R&D for the rockets, or 96,5 million per launch. Hardly the bloated government program everyone tries to portray it as.

Black Colt gets you a suborbital SSTO aerial refueling rocket plane and its tanker. Buying a simple (2 mil) solid rocket booster lets you send satellites into orbit with it, or you can skip off the atmosphere and be anywhere in the world in less than an hour. Fresh Sushi from Tokyo anyone? Would sir care to be in Paris for lunch? I need this package in Rio by close of business tonight! Hell the military can even use it to kill people or spy on them.

It was designed as a precursor to the fully orbital Black Horse which would likewise use Aerial Propellant Transfer, allowing it to take off under jet power, fill its LOX tanks at altitude from a tanker, and then blast into orbit. Fueling in the air means you can design a much lighter rocket plane.

The point is that while Space Ship One (And the later Virgin Galactic space planes) probably only have limited commercial utility beyond tourism flights, there are ways to make money off of space without going into orbit, and once you master that it is a fairly simple task to go orbital.

I think Mercury was an excellent program considering they had to do almost everything from scratch. Apollo for reference was I think 83 billion in 2004 dollars, and I think it would’ve been worth it at twice the price, but private companies can and should peruse space independent of building rockets for NASA, and so long as they can make Cost-plus doing that, why should they gamble on their own programs? People talk about Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo as if they were built in US Government factories; like everything else the government buys, they were built by private firms to government specifications.

[Sarevok]

Please show proof of a suborbital vehicle that dont cost an arm and leg of the passengr for each flight. Not napkin concepts but an actual flying aircraft. Because you see real world aircraft cant go beyond mach 3 without exotic engines and require extreme maintainence after each flight. Even a simple fighter like Mig 25 would damage its engines as it approached mach 3.

[eion]

Please show proof of a suborbital vehicle that dont cost an arm and leg of the passengr for each flight. Not napkin concepts but an actual flying aircraft. Because you see real world aircraft cant go beyond mach 3 without exotic engines and require extreme maintainence after each flight. Even a simple fighter like Mig 25 would damage its engines as it approached mach 3.

While not a proof-of-concept or anything approaching a prototype, this is not a "napkin concept". There is nothing exotic about the engines of the Black Colt, It uses two Garrett (now Honeywell) F-125 turbofans for take-off, refueling, landing, and ferrying operations and a NK-31 RP/O2 rocket engine for suborbital flights. Both engines are already in production, and have been for some time. The solid rocket booster needed to boost payloads into orbit is an off the shelf model like the Star-48 costing about $1.5 million each, while a normal cost of a 400kg satellite payload is around $10 million.

What about the concept is impossible? If you take-off carrying only the kerosene you need for your jet engines and rocket motor, and meet up with a tanker using your jet engines to take on the majority of your liquid oxygen for your suborbital jaunt your airframe will naturally be able to be designed to be lighter because it doesn't have to support the weight of all that LOX on the ground, nor do its engines have to be powerful enough to get it off the ground all tanked up.

Mid-air refueling is simple enough for even you to understand. A fighter like the Mig-25 doesn't take off with a full load of missiles and a full load of fuel because it can't. Ergo they launch with a full load of weapons, meet up with a bigger plane and get more fuel.

Just because you lack imagination doesn't mean the rest of us should have to suffer.

EDIT: I should also have mentioned that the company that originally developed the Black Colt later upgraded the design by increasing the payload capacity by replacing the F-125 with engines used in that most experimental of aircraft, the F-15, and used another kind of reliable rocket motor made in Russia with better thrust. They also managed to secure at least 8 million dollars in funding from NASA, so somebody thought the concept worth pursuing.

[Darth Wong]

So Coyote, explain to me how we are going to go anywhere in space if we don't even have man rated capsules to fly us there?

We're not-- bear in mind, I agree with your criticisms. In spades. My original posiution was "fuck da Moon, been there done that, go to Mars" but after reading along I realize the hurdles of practicality that represents, so I'd shift gears and go for the Moon.

But Obama's plan leaves us with neither option on the table. Years from now, when we finally do decide to land on the Moon again, orbital control there will give us instructions in either Mandarin, Russian or Hindi, and we'll all wonder why.

You realize your position is based on national chauvinism, right? Why is it important that America have a completely self-sufficient "leadership role"? Flag-waving pride? If other nations have lift capability to get astronauts into space, and they intend to continue maintaining and developing that capability, then why should America have its own expensive duplicate program for doing exactly the same thing, when it can focus on other areas? We're not at war with these folks; why not co-operate with them toward a common human goal?

A Mars mission is not contingent upon Earth launch vehicles anyway. Such a mission would start from orbit, not from the ground.

I can't say I'm hugely enthused with the Obama plan, but an awful lot of the screeching criticisms of it seem to come from a place of flag-brandishing dick-waving ego. Oh nooooooo, if we cooperate with the Russians and the Chinese on space exploration, it's the end of the American space program!!!, right? Well I'm going to call bullshit on that.

[PeZook]

Black Colt gets you a suborbital SSTO aerial refueling rocket plane and its tanker. Buying a simple (2 mil) solid rocket booster lets you send satellites into orbit with it, or you can skip off the atmosphere and be anywhere in the world in less than an hour. Fresh Sushi from Tokyo anyone? Would sir care to be in Paris for lunch? I need this package in Rio by close of business tonight! Hell the military can even use it to kill people or spy on them.

You're really bungling up the terms here: it's not an SSTO vehicle - it neither goes to orbit, nor does it in one stage. It's actually a three-stage to orbit vehicle (like most rockets, except with a pathetically small payload): stage one is take-off to refuelling, stage two is refuelling to suborbital, stage three is launching the satellite booster.

This isn't to say it's not a cool concept, but again, the claim was those private projects "put NASA to shame", as if NASA did something poorly or with some sort of ridiculous budget overrun. As you (correctly) observed, NASA simply managed the money, planned missions, trained astronauts and ran the facilities, the hardware was made by private companies anyway, and these same companies continue to make money off those designs with commercial satellite launches. The differences lie in budgets, and that's usually what companies like Virgin or SpaceX like to brag about, yet have not actually delivered.

Furthermore, you compared the Black Colt to the Space Shuttle, which can get seven people and 20 tonnes of payload to orbit. And to add insult to injury, you compared the capital cost (the vehicle and tanker) to per-launch cost, between two vehicles that are literally orders of magnitude apart in size and complexity. It's very easy to build a pick-up truck that's cheaper than an eighteen wheeler, after all.

It was designed as a precursor to the fully orbital Black Horse which would likewise use Aerial Propellant Transfer, allowing it to take off under jet power, fill its LOX tanks at altitude from a tanker, and then blast into orbit. Fueling in the air means you can design a much lighter rocket plane.

It also adds tremendous complexity and significant risk to the operation - LOX fuelling is pretty dangerous even in controlled conditions on the ground. But that's understandable, since no plan is without drawbacks.

The point is that while Space Ship One (And the later Virgin Galactic space planes) probably only have limited commercial utility beyond tourism flights, there are ways to make money off of space without going into orbit, and once you master that it is a fairly simple task to go orbital.

Except that's not what you originally said, and not what I was criticizing. I actually agree with most of your sentiment here.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

And now for an optimistic point of view on the Obama Administration's space "vision":

- New heavy lifter design to be chosen in 2015: An appeasement of the corporations who missed out on the Ares V pie. Since Alliant and Boeing are loathe to throw away all that development, one can bet that Ares V will be one of the boosters vying for the contract only it'll be called an "Alliant/Boeing" something or other. As I recall Ares V wasn't slated for first launch until 2018 anyway. So there's no real change to the plan here.

- Orion becoming the ISS escape capsule/crew return vehicle: An appeasement of the corporations who developed Orion. And a handout to the manufacturers of presently-extant heavy non-man-rated launchers. The optimist would say that the required 6 to 12 month on-orbit time gives NASA the chance to prove the design works for long-duration missions. It also saves the future private-enterprise manned LEO spacecraft the costs of developing a vehicle capable remaining on-station for months at a time, since they'll only be staying in space just long enough to get a crew to the ISS. A crew-return Orion will also probably end up differing from a cislunar/deep space capable Orion only in the quantity of shielding and avionics it carries.

- Asteroid rendezvous and landing mission: Some of us have been pushing for one of these over a Moon mission for a long time now. The optimist would point out that it takes a roughly similar effort to get out to one, less effort to get back, and the future of space industry is in the asteroids anyway. An asteroid landing is also a convenient segue to a Mars mission.

- Orbit Mars by 2030: The optimist would point out that all that asteroid rendezvousing and landing comes in handy here. Mars is orbited by two glorified asteroids. A manned Mars orbital mission could spend quite a bit of time on Phobos or Deimos while waiting for the window to return to Earth.

With all the optimism aside: Is this the best plan for space purists? Not by a long shot. Is it the death of American manned space exploration formulated by Barry Hussein "Evil Socialist Communazi" Obama and his super-secret Chinese and Islamic puppetmasters? Hardly. Is it a massive corporate handout by a Clintonesque center-chasing triangulator and a typically American free-market worshipper? Definitely. Is it the best a NASA, who's principle reason for existence these days is to funnel pork to certain Congressional districts, can do? Probably.

[Sarevok]

Nothing you can do as president in todays climate makes slighest progress towards a viable human colonization of outer space. You can play around low orbit, on the moon or on mars. Buts its just playing not something sustainable. Making the BIG decision to open up space as a frontier is impossible in present budgets. You need thousands of tons machinery and equipment launched - essentially begin to create the start of an industrial base up there. That will not happen in our lifetimes because no one is willing to invest the titanic sums of money required. Hence it makes no sense to criticize Obama or praise him. Nothing Obama does with respect to space will do anything game changing. When we die space will be just as inaccesible as it is today.

[Cecelia5578]

Barry Hussein "Evil Socialist Communazi" Obama and his super-secret Chinese and Islamic puppetmasters?

Hehe, if you want to be silly, its more like Barry Hussein "Libertarian free market fetisher in this one case only" Obama.

[MKSheppard]

As I recall Ares V wasn't slated for first launch until 2018 anyway. So there's no real change to the plan here.

Bullshit. You can't go from picking the design in 2015 to launch in just three years.

It's another long delay in Obama's plan.

A crew-return Orion will also probably end up differing from a cislunar/deep space capable Orion only in the quantity of shielding and avionics it carries.

And how many spacecraft designs has NASA upgraded past the original design in it's long history? NONE. Shuttle is essentially the same spacecraft that flew in 1981, minus new glass cockpit, and some minor changes to the SSME to improve reliability.

[MKSheppard]

In May 1990, during a speech at Texas A&M, George H.W. Bush established 2019 as a goal for a manned landing on Mars.

A lot of NASA development work began on paper to design heavy launch vehicles and the long term life support required to achieve this objective, and continued on during Mr. Bush's remaining years in office.

However, after Bill Clinton took office, he ordered a review of NASA's mission; which took three years to accomplish.

In September 1996 based on that review, Clinton went up and cancelled Bush's Manned Mars Landing by 2019, and instead committed NASA to putting a robot on Mars by 2000.

And like now, much was made of the need to increase efficiency in the space program by transferring activities to....the private sector.

So it's 1996 all over again.

[Sarevok]

Thats depressing to know. From 1990 to 2019 is a very long time. If the administrations since then stuck to the plan eventually we would have gotten men landed on mars. Maybe the problem is every few years the decision makers come up with yet another way to mars. Perhaps its time to accept a decent mars mission plan and stick to it no matter what instead of revolving in circles as we chase the ultimate mars mission proposal.

[Skylon]

And how many spacecraft designs has NASA upgraded past the original design in it's long history? NONE. Shuttle is essentially the same spacecraft that flew in 1981, minus new glass cockpit, and some minor changes to the SSME to improve reliability.

Apollo planned to fly the Block I CSM until that vehicle killed its crew before even flying...many of the post-Apollo 1 fire upgrades were already on the docket for the Block II CSM that flew all the successful Apollo and Skylab missions (the Block I CSM couldn't even dock). Post-Apollo 13 I believe there was an extra oxygen tank added to the service module, and Apollo's 15-17 carried a bay in the service module with scientific instruments.

The Mercury Alan Shepard flew on the first manned mission was considerably different than the ones flown on subsequent flights (aside from later ones being equipped for longer duration, the hand controller was different, there was a window and an explosive hatch for emergency egress).

Gemini's 3, 4 and 6 were battery powered, while Gemini 5 and 7 - 12 were powered by fuel cells.

The shuttles upgrades, aside from the ones you mentioned were mostly on the payload end. Challenger, Discovery and Atlantis were equipped to utilize Centaur upper stages for payloads, but that was removed following the loss of Challenger. Columbia and Endeavour were equipped with plumbing to carry the extended duration orbiter cryo kit (allkowing for missions up to 28 days). Endeavour had that plumbing removed to save weight for ISS flights, whereas Columbia retained it until its last flight (in which the EDO cryo kit was lost as well). The Shuttle External Tank has gone through several variations, mostly weight modifications.

These aren't as dramatic as say, a current Soyuz versus Soyuz 1 (which is basically the same system), especially with Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, whose lifespans were very short. However, every American spacecraft flown has been modified in some way.

[eion]

You're really bungling up the terms here: it's not an SSTO vehicle - it neither goes to orbit, nor does it in one stage. It's actually a three-stage to orbit vehicle (like most rockets, except with a pathetically small payload): stage one is take-off to refuelling, stage two is refuelling to suborbital, stage three is launching the satellite booster.

You're right, rocketplane is a better term.

This isn't to say it's not a cool concept, but again, the claim was those private projects "put NASA to shame", as if NASA did something poorly or with some sort of ridiculous budget overrun. As you (correctly) observed, NASA simply managed the money, planned missions, trained astronauts and ran the facilities, the hardware was made by private companies anyway, and these same companies continue to make money off those designs with commercial satellite launches. The differences lie in budgets, and that's usually what companies like Virgin or SpaceX like to brag about, yet have not actually delivered.

But the private companies that build NASA’s rockets have little interest in developing better, cheaper launch systems because they see themselves in the business of making rockets, not providing the service of space travel. Why would they develop a system that costs half as much as the shuttle, and is fully reusable (X-33)? My primary issue is with the way NASA contracts are handled, not with their results.

Furthermore, you compared the Black Colt to the Space Shuttle, which can get seven people and 20 tonnes of payload to orbit. And to add insult to injury, you compared the capital cost (the vehicle and tanker) to per-launch cost, between two vehicles that are literally orders of magnitude apart in size and complexity. It's very easy to build a pick-up truck that's cheaper than an eighteen wheeler, after all.

True, but if all you want to do is haul a pick-up sized load around (Say a tonne of overnight packages) why would you take the 18-wheeler?. The space shuttle isn't scalable; no matter how little you want to take to orbit, you always have to drag that flying brickyard up with you and back. I've always wanted to do a comparison and see exactly how many times we've actually brought something back inside the shuttle cargo bay, which after all is one of the few advantages of using the orbiter. My guess would be not often outside of the spacelab missions.

It was designed as a precursor to the fully orbital Black Horse which would likewise use Aerial Propellant Transfer, allowing it to take off under jet power, fill its LOX tanks at altitude from a tanker, and then blast into orbit. Fueling in the air means you can design a much lighter rocket plane.

It also adds tremendous complexity and significant risk to the operation - LOX fuelling is pretty dangerous even in controlled conditions on the ground. But that's understandable, since no plan is without drawbacks.

True, refueling with LOX at altitude has never been done before, but if there is any leakage it should boil off quite quickly and join the rest of the oxygen in the atmosphere. I believe the plan called for mounting a modified LOX tanker truck inside a cargo plane, rather than modifying a a fuel tanker to carry LOX.

The point is that while Space Ship One (And the later Virgin Galactic space planes) probably only have limited commercial utility beyond tourism flights, there are ways to make money off of space without going into orbit, and once you master that it is a fairly simple task to go orbital.

Except that's not what you originally said, and not what I was criticizing. I actually agree with most of your sentiment here.

Sorry my intent wasn't clear.

[Sarevok]

Regarding refueling rocketplanes.....

Velocity is the main problem. Not altitude. You need 11000 m/s. A rocketplane must achieve that velocity without refueling to work. Why ? Because 1) air to air refuelling has never been done at even slightly above supersonic speeds. 2) in the atmosphere rocketplanes velocity is severely limited. Any faster and it would burn up. The atmosphere also is a very bad source of friction. Thats why every rocket design leaves the atmosphere as quickly as possible and then attains orbital velocity.

A rocketplane trying to refuell midair would never achieve orbit.

[eion]

In May 1990, during a speech at Texas A&M, George H.W. Bush established 2019 as a goal for a manned landing on Mars.

A lot of NASA development work began on paper to design heavy launch vehicles and the long term life support required to achieve this objective, and continued on during Mr. Bush's remaining years in office.

Shep, come on. You know the 90-Day report was never going to happen. Not by 2019, not ever. Under it, in order to get to Mars you had to do the following:

-Build a space station three times the size of the ISS, with dual keels, orbital construction yards, checkout docks, etc. Not to mention the other supply stations orbiting close by, fuel depots, cryogenic oxygen tanks, etc.
-All that was so you could go to the Moon. Once you got there you built a moon base, simple task right?
-Between the orbital facilities and your lunar complex, you construct a 1,000 tonne trans-Martian spaceship using completely different engines from your trans-lunar ships
-Once you get to Mars, you send down a small landing craft, spend about 2 weeks on the surface (after it took you 6 months to get there) plant a flag, grab some rocks, and then blast back into orbit for the LONG journey home.

How much does it cost to spend 2 weeks on Mars according to Mr. Bush? $450 Billion Dollars, which would be about $785 Billion Dollars today. NASA’s budget at the time? $12.5 Billion.

To borrow a phrase: Not gonna do it, wouldn't be prudent, not at this juncture.

[Sarevok]

On the other orbital assets and deep space going true spaceships are more useful than a oneshot trip on a glorified capsule. They can be reused and be used to explore the entire inner solar system.

[eion]

Regarding refueling rocketplanes.....

Velocity is the main problem. Not altitude. You need 11000 m/s. A rocketplane must achieve that velocity without refueling to work. Why ? Because 1) air to air refuelling has never been done at even slightly above supersonic speeds. 2) in the atmosphere rocketplanes velocity is severely limited. Any faster and it would burn up. The atmosphere also is a very bad source of friction. Thats why every rocket design leaves the atmosphere as quickly as possible and then attains orbital velocity.

A rocketplane trying to refuell midair would never achieve orbit.

Did you even click the link? Did you zone out when I was talking about jet engines? It takes off from a normal runway under jet power, flies to a tanker under jet power, loads up on LOX from the tanker under jet power, climbs higher to an optimal altitude, and then, AND ONLY THEN, ignites its rocket engine. After it finishes suborbital operations it makes some sweeping S-turns (the same turns the space shuttle uses) to burn off speed until it’s back down to subsonic range, then it uses its jet engines to fly back to base under power.

Where did I say it was refueling supersonically? Where did I say it was using its rocket engines for anything besides achieving sub-orbital velocity?

[eion]

On the other orbital assets and deep space going true spaceships are more useful than a oneshot trip on a glorified capsule. They can be reused and be used to explore the entire inner solar system.

I agree, but that's not the point. IT WAS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN! The most NASA has ever spent on a project is Apollo at $83 Billion Dollars (2004), and that took less than 9 years, not 30. No congress was ever going to approve that plan.

[Sarevok]

As I said before you get what you pay for. If you are not willing to pour hundreds of billions into the space program dont expect any grand returns.

[eion]

As I said before you get what you pay for. If you are not willing to pour hundreds of billions into the space program dont expect any grand returns.

And I think you can get plenty of awesome results without spending $450 Billion dollars. Even if Mars Direct is an under-estimation, at double the cost ($55 Billion x 2 = $110 Billion) it's still a quarter of the price of the 90-Day report, and it gives you a piece of hardware that can reach any point outward to Ceres with almost no modification.

Know what I measure success by? Results, not how much money I spent to get those results. You don’t get to see a different Mars by spending 8 times more than the other guy to get there.

[Sarevok]

Mars Direct is a bad idea. All that money spent for just one single trip to plant a flag. That makes zero amount of sense. Right now biggest problem is cheaply launching stuff into orbit and moving around interplanetary distances. It would be way better to focus the big money on heavy launch vehicles and nuclear powered interplanetary spaceships. Once you get the infrastructure in place astronauts can explore the solar system at leisure. Instead of painstakingly planning a super expensive trip each time they leave low Earth orbit and go to another planet or asteroid.

[eion]

Mars Direct is a bad idea. All that spent for just one single trip to plant a flag. That makes zero amount of sense. Right now biggest problem is cheaply launching stuff into orbit and moving around interplanetary distances. It would be way better to focus the big money on heavy launch vehicles and nuclear powered interplanetary spaceships. Once you get the infrastructure in place astronauts can explore the solar system at leisure. Instead of painstakingly planning a super expensive trip each time they leave low Earth orbit and go to another planet or asteroid.

You haven't even read the Mars Direct plan have you? You get multiple missions, and you spend 550 days on the surface, ONE AND A HALF YEARS! Know how much time you spent there under previous plans? 30 days. You spent 2 years getting there and back , versus 1 year with Mars Direct.

You cannot jump from no trans-Atlantic travel to the fucking Titanic. Exploration does not work that way. Columbus always goes first.

With the only significant modification (For going to the Moon you need less hardware overall) being the amount and type of feedstock to make your return fuel, with MD hardware you can visit:

-the Moon
-Mars
-Ceres and all her sisters.

With more research we might be able to add Mercury to that list, since it's basically the Moon with a magnetic field, which is a good thing. This is not a specialized system, it’s a fucking jeep!

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

[MKSheppard]

Build a space station three times the size of the ISS, with dual keels, orbital construction yards, checkout docks, etc.

That's pretty funny, considering that Space Station FREEDOM was pretty much close to that size in it's various incarnations, and would have been cheaper to build than ISS.

ISS has been a huge boondoggle from the start, with massive overruns and delays due to the Russian Economy taking a crapper in the 1990s, severely delaying everything, since key parts of ISS are reliant on Russian components.

Not to mention the other supply stations orbiting close by, fuel depots, cryogenic oxygen tanks, etc.

That's pretty funny, because as part of Bush I's MARS initative, NASA began to look into various heavy lift concepts, and this is where Shuttle-C came from; it was one proposed idea. If you want to put stuff into orbit, whether it's a space station, fuel depots, spacecraft, you need a heavy lift vehicle.

Unfortunately, that all died when Clinton killed it in 1996.

How much does it cost to spend 2 weeks on Mars according to Mr. Bush? $450 Billion Dollars, which would be about $785 Billion Dollars today. NASA’s budget at the time? $12.5 Billion.

Lets see now. 29 years from 1990 to 2019. That's only $15.5 billion a year, within a conceivable budget increase for NASA.

[eion]

^ and the need for a dedicated lunar base and a 1,000 tonne spaceship to spend 30 days on Mars...