NASA doing it again

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2006-01-31 12:41pm

Well this author on space.com rips NASA a new one for there stupid policies. Basiclly instead of going for a cheap, clean renewable fuel source they are going to use the same type of expensive, dangerous fuels they use now. All becuase of pressure from the oldtimers that believe they are supporting the space age when all they are doing is hurting it. Oh well its a good thing new companies like sacel composites, New Horizons and others are at least looking toward the future and not the past.

I don’t know if you noticed—between fashion reports from red carpets of Hollywood awards shows and the return of new Battlestar Galactica episodes—but NASA is thinking about dropping methane-type propellants from its requirements for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) program in favor of harder to handle, yet more dangerous hypergolic propellants like those used in the shuttle and other old-school systems.

Now, this may sound just a tiny bit obscure and technical, but it is actually symbolic of the agency turning its back on the future, as it struggles to please its established constituencies by going backwards in time. This is of course ironic for an exploration and advanced research agency; in fact you might even call it anti-thetical to its purpose, as understood by the public who funds the whole thing. But to those of us who have watched this throwing out the oars and compass to save the ship mentality, it is nothing new—if not completely predictable. Remember the space shuttle being able to fly 50 times a year? Or, the space station that was going to be a port in space and a lab to learn how to live and work there? (This is the Internet my friends, go back and read the words from those who gave us these earlier myths—at the time they seemed just as solid as the current ones, and were pronounced with just as important and knowing voices.)

You see, once again, longterm supportability—and any relevance to any overarching goal like opening space to the people—is being sacrificed to pay for short term budget challenges that really don’t need to exist at all. On a leadership level, this isn’t all NASA’s fault. Due to internal and external pressures from old timers and those who think they’re supporting our space program in Congress (but are actually hurting it), NASA is trying to make sure that there is no gap between the shuttle’s 2010 retirement and the arrival of its "Crude Exploitation Vehicle".

Of course, as Bill O’Reilly would say, I am spinning this my own way. I admit it. My goal, the permanent and economically profitable expansion of the human species beyond the Earth, is not the goal of NASA, comments by their leadership in national newspapers notwithstanding. Their goal, if one can tease it out from their actions, is to look really busy doing really important things, while spending our money propping up certain major companies and political constituencies. They may have themselves fooled into thinking they are going somewhere, but with few exceptions, they are building a system that will lead us nowhere. This will be done at the greatest possible cost to the taxpayers and return the highest possible profit to the entrenched aerospace cabal that created the concepts in the first place.

So, back to methane propellant, which, not so coincidentally, is also a gas exuded by well-fed animals. The ability to mine, extract and manufacture methane—based fuel from the resources we find in space and on the Moon and Mars is the equivalent of learning how to live off the land. You want to live in space permanently, you can’t take expensive, hard to use, and dangerous stuff with you all the time everywhere you go. Instead, you make the investment early to develop the tools to live cheaply later on. (Think of it this way, you need water at your new outpost in the desert. You either spend a few bucks to drill a well now, or you pay someone to bring you water forever. Evian anyone?)

Now, because we have these artificial goals and badly designed rocket systems, NASA suddenly has a tight budget and a short timeline. So they don’t want to take any risks, or spend any money that doesn’t directly apply to the artificial goal they have set. That means using old, tried and true, already developed systems—even though they may totally blow our long-term budget, and kill off our ability to stay where we are going once we get there. But at least they are "mature technologies." That is, we know they work, for now. And why should it matter, as the "busy" people with their hands in our wallet are going to make their money anyway, and this way they don’t have to break a sweat.

Methane based rocketry is not yet a "mature technology" in the language of astrocrats. In other words, it has not been developed to the level of dependability one would need to trust it as the central pillar of a space system (so unlike using a shuttle solid rocket booster based vehicle to launch a crew, …err…what…?) Anyway, in order to count on such systems, they need to be developed and tested and tested and used and tested and….etc…. Well, if you kill their funding before that happens, you don’t get any new "mature" technologies, and thus, self-fulfilling prophecy be praised, you have to go back to tried and true systems that always worked before—like nasty, explosive, hard to use hypergolics. Now to be fair, many at NASA, especially those who have to get down and dirty every day and deal with them hate this stuff. They have a tendency to kill and maim more than other types of propellants (look into accident records at the cape for more on this). Of course this is far away from the comfort of headquarters, where a coffee spill in the snack room is the height of daily disasters. Also, a massive amount of infrastructure and cost goes into their use. They require systems that are complex and often the root of large costs. And, a little side note—if you are looking at long distance voyages, methane may be more efficient. But once again, the enemy you know is safer than the potential friend you don’t.

Speaking of potential friends, ironically, this is all at a time when lip service is being paid to helping our innovative and fledgling NewSpace industry get off the ground (so to speak). NASA’s decision to drop this sort of motor will be in the face of the fact that at least one NewSpace firm is already testing exactly this sort of technology, using its own money! A relative pittance of funds from the agency flowing into this project and other promising research both inside and outside of NASA could get this technology into a few rocketships relatively soon. This could all happen in the few years between now and when NASA says they will be ready to fly the new government space machine. Notice I use the terms "when NASA says" which I will bet the Moon is at least three to four years earlier than when they might actually do so if they keep going the way they are now. (Note to anal retentives - Please archive this statement and have it pop up on your handy dandy computer calander in 2010.)

With just a tiny bit of guts, money and faith in American ingenuity, NASA could support the birth of this very much frontier-enabling technology. The offer of prizes for methane propellant processing and rocket motor demonstrations, as well as other incentives, such as buying rides or payload services to orbit from these firms would help drive them into use. They appear to be much more economical than traditional technologies, and this would help methane rockets reach technical "maturity." Think about it! Both the government and the private sector would benefit! What a great win-win concept!

Won’t happen though.

As it makes too much sense. Wish it would. But it won’t. Want it to… but no, it won’t.

Look, if you get one thing from this rant of mine, get this, it ain’t about sense, it’s about rocket science—as defined in Washington.

So what’s up with Adama on Galactica this week…? And that Scarlet Johansson girl on the red carpet…looking good in that gown baby!

Rick N. Tumlinson is the founder of the Space Frontier Foundation.

http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_tu ... 60130.html

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-01-31 02:00pm

Could a very small, one-man vehicle use human fart alone to travel through space? You don't need too much thrust in a zero-g environment, and once you get going, you can even reduce thrust. Man, a fart powered craft would be tits.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-01-31 09:16pm

wolveraptor wrote:Could a very small, one-man vehicle use human fart alone to travel through space? You don't need too much thrust in a zero-g environment, and once you get going, you can even reduce thrust. Man, a fart powered craft would be tits.

"A fart-powered craft would be tits"? That's some strange vernacular...

You might be able to, but I doubt you could really get anywhere any anything close to a hurry.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2006-01-31 09:42pm

You could genetically engineer a been plant that grows pre-baked beans and use it for O2/Food.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2006-01-31 09:42pm

You could genetically engineer a been plant that grows pre-baked beans and use it for O2/Food and propulsion.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-02-01 12:09am

Molyneux wrote:"A fart-powered craft would be tits"? That's some strange vernacular...

I've been reading too much Maddox. I tend to start using the same expletives I'm exposed to while reading. I never said, "I don't give a flying fuck," till I came to SDN.

You might be able to, but I doubt you could really get anywhere any anything close to a hurry.

Well, you could use an initial burst of fuel to get off the ground, and then make cheap trips to Mars or the Moon using it. Of course, I don't actually know the average amount of methane released by a human, nor do I know what the power output would be, so I can't really say that with confidence.

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2006-02-01 01:38pm

Yes there's a need to develop new fuels and technologies. However, trying to develop new fuel & propulsion systems and then sticking them on a new & untested launch vehicle is going to far, at least under current contraints. This isn't the Apollo era anymore, NASA no longer has effectively unlimited budgets to entirely new launch systems from the ground up, which is what's going to be required with what this author proposes. Even with today's computing power & so forth, you can't expect to design a whole new propulsion system, stick it on a whole new launch vehicle and expect it to work.

What needs to be done is a test program. Develop a proof of concept methane engine system and a cheap throwaway vehicle to power with it. Launch it. Then analyze the data, make changes, scale it up, make more changes until it meets the requirements of the future launch vehicle. That costs money though. You can't just say "make a methane powered rocket of the future", there's way too many things to go wrong. If the methane power system doesn't work, the whole program is fucked.

Basically, what I'm saying is this. Push the CEV ahead in its current configuration, but design it so a methane engine system can be retrofitted in the future. We don't have methane technology now, we probably won't have it when the CEV is ready, but we likely will sometime during the CEV's life cycle.

ClaysGhost · Post by **ClaysGhost** » 2006-02-01 08:11pm

It seems like for every space travel/rocketry pundit who writes a ranting article about "How NASA are Getting It Wrong" and puts it on space.com, you can find another (often also on space.com) who writes a similar article claiming that NASA are getting it wrong in exactly the opposite way to that claimed in the first article. Heavy lift capability is essential; heavy lift capability is madness distilled. Reusable rockets are the most efficient; reusable rockets are a money pit. Let's do lifting bodies, wait, who wants to do lifting bodies? NASA are gutless and visionless because they're not using aerospike engines; aerospike engines are a communist conspiracy against the American people. SSTO is an idea that could only have come from the devil; Jesus built my SSTO.

This phenomenon has made me rather cynical about ranting articles on (increasingly fine-grained) issues connected with NASA that appear on space.com and the like.

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-02-01 08:16pm

During a recent job interview, we had a "trapped on the moon" group puzzle thing to solve.

Apparently, a pair of Colt 1911s would provide sufficient propulsion from the muzzle blast to act as a reasonable form of movement on the lunar surface.

Now ALLEGEDLY this was done by NASA scientists, but given the fact that the 1911 wouldn't even be able to fire on the moon, I doubt it. Anyone with a clue able to compare the muzzle energy of a 1911 to that required to shift a human around?

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-02-01 11:43pm

weemadando wrote:During a recent job interview, we had a "trapped on the moon" group puzzle thing to solve.

Apparently, a pair of Colt 1911s would provide sufficient propulsion from the muzzle blast to act as a reasonable form of movement on the lunar surface.

Now ALLEGEDLY this was done by NASA scientists, but given the fact that the 1911 wouldn't even be able to fire on the moon, I doubt it. Anyone with a clue able to compare the muzzle energy of a 1911 to that required to shift a human around?

...why wouldn't a Colt be able to fire on the Moon? (you're talking about a handgun, right?)

Gildor · Post by **Gildor** » 2006-02-02 12:30am

...why wouldn't a Colt be able to fire on the Moon? (you're talking about a handgun, right?)

No air to fuel the combustion.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2006-02-02 01:07am

Gildor wrote:
...why wouldn't a Colt be able to fire on the Moon? (you're talking about a handgun, right?)
No air to fuel the combustion.

I thought the gunpowder used nowdays has the oxidizer inside it?

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2006-02-02 01:30am

aerius wrote:Yes there's a need to develop new fuels and technologies. However, trying to develop new fuel & propulsion systems and then sticking them on a new & untested launch vehicle is going to far, at least under current contraints. This isn't the Apollo era anymore, NASA no longer has effectively unlimited budgets to entirely new launch systems from the ground up, which is what's going to be required with what this author proposes. Even with today's computing power & so forth, you can't expect to design a whole new propulsion system, stick it on a whole new launch vehicle and expect it to work.

What needs to be done is a test program. Develop a proof of concept methane engine system and a cheap throwaway vehicle to power with it. Launch it. Then analyze the data, make changes, scale it up, make more changes until it meets the requirements of the future launch vehicle. That costs money though. You can't just say "make a methane powered rocket of the future", there's way too many things to go wrong. If the methane power system doesn't work, the whole program is fucked.

Basically, what I'm saying is this. Push the CEV ahead in its current configuration, but design it so a methane engine system can be retrofitted in the future. We don't have methane technology now, we probably won't have it when the CEV is ready, but we likely will sometime during the CEV's life cycle.

What we shouldn't place a new type of engine with a new type of fuel in a new type of vehicle because NASA doesn't have funding. Why not it worked for SpaceShip 1 all in a space of a few years. While there is no reason why NASA can't do it the real reason as he stated is the fact that many companies would lose to much money in not being able to provide expensive fuels. And I'll see if I can find the study NASA did a couple of years ago about this, it actually ridicules the development of alternate fuel sources for no particular reason.

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2006-02-02 01:35am

Here's some more info. So basiclly the fuels they are going to use are expensive, dangerous, corrosive, resource extensive also very hard to produce on the moon plus many more reasons.

http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=716

* SNIP The proposed substitutes have serious drawbacks. "Hypergolics (also used on Apollo’s lunar module) are highly toxic, corrosive and therefore labor intensive and expensive." They will lower the development cost but at the expense of flight cost. In addition, at the end of the Shuttle program, NASA would have had the opportunity to shut down its hypergol facilities and save some money.

While hydrogen may eventually be produced from water on the Moon, it involves serious storage challenges. Furthermore, one may not want to sacrifice limited water supplies for fuel. LH2/LOX offers higher impulse than methane/LOX but the low density LH2 requires bigger, heavier tanks. "It takes 13 times as much tank mass to hold a pound of hydrogen than it takes to hold a pound of oxygen. For multiple-use vehicles operating at the end of a long logistics chain, the extra empty vehicle mass needed to hold hydrogen must be traded against the lower Isp but lighter LOX/methane vehicles. This trade was to have been done in September 2007 when the RCE [Reaction Control Engine] and ME [service module Main Engine] development contracts were to have shown actual performance data after engine hot-fire demonstrations."

* NASA is arguing that it needs "to concentrate on the Moon now and not build towards a future target, not to think that far ahead. But such "arguments with both the Shuttle and Station led to catastrophic results for the costs and utility of those programs by putting off key work for the sake of the ‘core mission’ in unsustainable Apollo style."

* The big aerospace firms typically "include bid and proposal efforts in their negotiated long-term reimbursable costs" so when NASA changes direction they don't take a big hit. For the small firms, however, who invest a large portion of their limited resources to submit a formal proposal on a technology that NASA says it needs, a reversal means a serious loss. Continued misleading behavior like this will discourage non-traditional suppliers at a time that NASA claims it is trying to involve them.

Orion, for example, announced that it was developing methane RCS thrusters for the AirLaunch Quickreach vehicle, but it is also said that it was aiming them for the NASA exploration program: Orion Propulsion - November 2005. No doubt XCOR included NASA as a potential customers for its methane engines.

* The fundamental criticism of the Exploration program that has come from the alt.space community is that the program as currently designed will make little progress towards development of a sustainable, long-term, in-space infrastructure. This decision further pushes the program towards "flags and footprints" rather than "return to stay" or "steppingstone to Mars" .

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2006-02-02 01:41am

Ahh ment to hit preview not submit.
Here's some more.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/ ... _more.html

[15. Architecture Advantages, ESAS Final Report

"Use of pressure-fed Liquid Oxygen (LOX)/methane propulsion on the CEV SM and Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) ascent stage enables In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) for lunar and Mars applications and improves the safety of the LSAM;"

13. Summary and Recommendations, ESAS Final Report

"An integrated pressure-fed LOX/methane service propulsion system/Reaction Control System (RCS) is recommended for the SM. Selection of this propellant combination was based on performance and commonality with the ascent propulsion system on the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM). The risk associated with this type of propulsion system for a lunar mission can be substantially reduced by developing the system early and flying it to the ISS. There is high risk in developing a LOX/methane propulsion system by 2011, but development schedules for this type of propulsion system have been studied and are in the range of hypergolic systems."

8. Risk and Reliability, ESAS Final Report

"The additional performance benefit of a mature LOX/methane system, along with the choice of a pump-fed LOX/hydrogen engine for LSAM descent, provided the launch mass capability to enable the 1.5-launch architecture, thus allowing for crew launch on the single-stick SRB, which has the lowest LOC probability. The LOX/methane system was also desirable to eliminate the operability issues related to hypergols and to enable the use of in-situ methane on Mars and oxygen on the Moon and Mars."

"8.1.1 LOX/Methane Engine/RCS Development The development of the LOX/methane engine was recognized as one of the largest architectural risks during the course of the ESAS. No LOX/methane engine has had any flight test experience and there has been only a limited number of Russian ground tests. The LOX/ methane system was desirable from a performance perspective and also to eliminate the operability issues related to hypergols and to enable the use of in-situ methane on Mars and oxygen on the Moon and Mars."

NASA News Conference With Mike Griffin: Exploration Systems Architecture Study (Transcript)

"So, the really only difference is the addition of the LOX/methane system that's baseline for the CEV service module and for the lunar ascent. The LOX/methane combination offers quite a lot more performance capability than the storables that you were talking about in your question with, we believe, no additional risk. In fact, overall, we think the system will be safer.

We will be carrying as a backup in the program the use of hypergolic propellants on the service module and on the lunar ascent stage such that, if the LOX-methane technology development does not work out as we expect, we will have a system that will work, although of course, it will provide lesser performance than what we're talking about today."

WyrdNyrd · Post by **WyrdNyrd** » 2006-02-02 03:00am

Exonerate wrote:
Gildor wrote:
...why wouldn't a Colt be able to fire on the Moon? (you're talking about a handgun, right?)
No air to fuel the combustion.
I thought the gunpowder used nowdays has the oxidizer inside it?

I would imagine that it does - How much atmospheric air gets inside a sealed cartridge at the moment of ignition?

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2006-02-02 08:44am

Screw methane; give me NERVA.

Seriously one can build a nuclear thermal rocket to run off anything and you can't get much more efficient thrust. Outside of a tether, I don't see how anything can be more efficient than nuclear.

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2006-02-02 08:54am

WyrdNyrd wrote:
Exonerate wrote:
Gildor wrote: No air to fuel the combustion.
I thought the gunpowder used nowdays has the oxidizer inside it?
I would imagine that it does - How much atmospheric air gets inside a sealed cartridge at the moment of ignition?

Well put.
The problem with firing a gun in space is that any lubricating oil will tend to boil off, which is bad for the long-term health of the gun.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2006-02-02 09:26am

Exonerate wrote:
Gildor wrote:
...why wouldn't a Colt be able to fire on the Moon? (you're talking about a handgun, right?)
No air to fuel the combustion.
I thought the gunpowder used nowdays has the oxidizer inside it?

Gunpowder does have it's own oxidizer, usually in the form of potassium nitrate.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2006-02-02 11:22am

tharkûn wrote:Screw methane; give me NERVA.

Seriously one can build a nuclear thermal rocket to run off anything and you can't get much more efficient thrust. Outside of a tether, I don't see how anything can be more efficient than nuclear.

Several of Zubrin's Mars Direct variants features nuclear thermal propulsion, which allowed much heavier payloads. So its NASA's fault, once again.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2006-02-02 12:01pm

weemadando wrote:Anyone with a clue able to compare the muzzle energy of a 1911 to that required to shift a human around?

Well, for this purpose the issue is more of the momentum. Energy could be divvied up any way between the bullet and shooter; momentum must be equal.

I couldn't find data on the gun you named, but I'll consider a 357 magnum.

0.01 kg bullet * 430 m/s = 4.3 kg m/s
If the subject has a mass of 100 kilos in a (light!) space suit, that's 4.3 cm/s.

Not promising.

There is additional gas exhaust, but I think it's fair to say it does not carry almost all of the momentum.

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-02-02 05:42pm

I thought as much.

For the scenario I had decided that the pistols were important for other reasons (a bunch of scavengable components that may be of some use - or at least more use than a cigarette lighter or dehydrated milk).

wilfulton · Post by **wilfulton** » 2006-02-02 10:05pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
Exonerate wrote:
Gildor wrote: No air to fuel the combustion.
I thought the gunpowder used nowdays has the oxidizer inside it?
Gunpowder does have it's own oxidizer, usually in the form of potassium nitrate.

I believe you're thinking of black powder, that was a mechanical mixture of charcoal, sulfur, and saltpeter (potassium nitrate).

Modern smokeless powder is comprised largely of nitrocellulose, and may contain other compounds such as nitroguanadine (sp?).

In any case, a firearm should be able to function even without lubricant, a classic example of this would be the AK-47, doesn't require much lube. Or it could be lubricated with something like graphite powder, which is also the preferred lube in desert conditions because dust doesn't stick to it.

Either way, I see no reason why even your old blunderbuss shouldn't function in space.

wilfulton · Post by **wilfulton** » 2006-02-02 10:15pm

An added problem with using a firearm for propulsion in space is that ammunition is quite heavy. In a .45 ACP cartridge you have a 230 grain bullet (7000 grains to a pound) about an 80 or so grain case, and maybe 5 or so grains of powder (depending on the type of power and the load). That's a lot of metal, and not a lot of propellant.

Anyhow, I would like to ask what makes methane so great for rocket fuel anyway?

main site wrote:Hydrogen burning = 1.2E8 J/kg
Methane gas burning = 5.0E7 J/kg
Coal burning ~ 2.3E7 J/kg (depending on grade of coal)

Is it because it is more readily found in nature in the outer solar system, whereas hydrogen would require complex equipment to hydrolysize from water? But either way you would still need oxygen to burn the methane. If you're processing water in the outer solar system for oxygen, what do you do with the hydrogen left over? Would you be wasting perfectly good fuel?

And another question I have, is do the above numbers include the mass of the oxidizer? i.e. does 1 kg of hydrogen burn in 8 kg of oxygen (H20, atomic weight of hydrogen=1, oxygen =16) to produce the above 1.2E8 J coming from 9 kg of reactants?

I'm not a rocket scientist, so I don't know all the ins and outs.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2006-02-03 09:23am

Is it because it is more readily found in nature in the outer solar system, whereas hydrogen would require complex equipment to hydrolysize from water? But either way you would still need oxygen to burn the methane. If you're processing water in the outer solar system for oxygen, what do you do with the hydrogen left over? Would you be wasting perfectly good fuel?

Methane works because it is cheap and the tank required to store it in is lighter than hydrogen's. Methane from the various extraterrestrial sources will still have to be purified which will require complex equipment of its own.