He has a surprisingly (for him — considering what an Ares koolaid drinker he’s been over the past few years) calm and objective assessment of the state of the new plan. I don’t know whether he’s right or not, but it’s politically plausible, for the near term. If we have to waste a few billion continuing to pretend to develop an Ares-based heavy lifter for a few years to keep the Florida rice bowls full, I can live with that, as long as the orbital technology funding doesn’t get starved for it. I’m still hoping that eventually, and before we sink too much money in that money pit, we’ll realize that we don’t need it. As for lunar landings and bases, there’s also plenty of time to change peoples’ minds on that. Everything planned for the deep-space missions will support it, and all we’ll need is a lander (which Masten and Armadillo, not to mention Blue Origin, are developing prototypes of now). If a fueling depot is established at L-1, that’s a natural time to decide whether to use it as a staging point for lunar surface activities.
21 thoughts on “Some Sanity From Jay Barbree”
Comments are closed.
If a fueling depot is established at L-1, that’s a natural time to decide whether to use it as a staging point for lunar surface activities.
Now would be a good time to make that decision…
The sooner the decision is made the better, but it’s not fatal to put it off a couple years (a lander really isn’t that hard, and shouldn’t take that long, to develop). And it’s not on the critical path yet. Depot technology is.
They tested the Orion pad abort today – pretty impressive 16G getaway …
Aviation Week
One of the comments at Aviation Week is obviously from a kool-aid drinker (or is that a bitter Ares-clinger?)
okay so I’m lousy at links.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/05/07/05.xml&headline=First Orion Pad Abort Test Is Nominal&channel=space
Video at the NASA Orion page
I think Rand is being too easy on Barbee (and Nelson, who appears to be the sole source for this “compromise.”)
If we’re canceling Ares V and passing on SDLV by virtue of them being technological dead ends and insanely expensive, why test Ares components? We really are heading to a worst-case scenario-NASA, where we’re spending money on HLV research, while still spending money on an HLV that we don’t intend to build.
No it isn’t. We don’t need depots to go beyond Earth orbit. We don’t need heavy lift either, unless you consider a Delta Medium heavy lift. You don’t even need to pick one of the two. If all we want to do is a somewhat more economical Apollo, then all we need is a lander and an extended duration mission kit for Centaur.
If we want to open up space however, then we need to get NASA out of the launch business and freely competing commercial propellant flights into the air as soon as possible. And that too requires neither full depots nor new technology.
A refuelable lander would be both necessary and sufficient in order to do this economically and to open up space in the process. And we can do that with existing technology. As you say ‘a lander really isn’t that hard, and shouldn’t take that long, to develop’. Depots on the other hand are. Why put any additional risk on the critical path? Do we want to open up space or what?
Of course, since depots are highly desirable and risky, NASA funded R&D into depots should start right away. Ideally it would be mostly done by people who actually know how to handle cryogens in microgravity (ULA, Boeing, LM, maybe even SpaceX). If there’s only money for one thing, then it should be depots. Otherwise, let’s open up space as soon as possible.
But these are two independent decisions: whether to fund depot development straight away and whether to put depots on the critical path. Putting depots on the critical path gains us very little if anything at all, and costs us valuable time and adds considerable risk that politicians will change their minds again.
I can understand a desire to overreach from the young ones. But you are considerably older than I am and you advocate this. Surely you are even less patient then I am to see cheap and reliable access to space? It’s not as if it hasn’t been known since the eighties how to achieve this.
Here’s an unlikely scenario for New Space advocates to ponder: what if five years from now we discover that either cryogenic propellant transfer or long term storage is not feasible? Will we give up on RLVs or other ways to achieve cheap and reliable access to space, lunar commerce etc? Or will we think of some other way to achieve our overriding goal? If so, what does that tell us about what to do now?
I propose the following decision strategy:
– is it necessary to get propellant flights into the air?
yes: => do it
no: => don’t do it
– is it necessary to do some (any) form of exploration?
yes: => do it
no: => don’t do it
– is it a crucial part of long term development of space?
yes: => fund R&D into it
no: => don’t do it
Based on current technology we know we don’t need HLV and we know we don’t need depots, neither for exploration nor for opening up space. At the same time we also know that we do want depots. This gives us enough information to 1) forget about HLV and 2) fund depot R&D. If there is enough money we should choose to 3) go beyond LEO asap with whatever technology we have available today in order to get those propellant flights into the air asap. If there isn’t the money, we’ll bide our time and seize the next opportunity whenever it presents itself, using whatever technology is available then.
Sorry I couldn’t make this any shorter.
The bottom line remains what I said in my Report last week. If “compromises” such as being forced to inhale Ares 1 type tests at outrageous costs pile up, then we end up losing most of the vital R&D steps and/or commercial crew. If Florida wants to keep people working on worse-than-useless technology, it should pay for it. Or ATK should. It’s only a fantasy land where we have enough money both to pay off the old interests with their dead-end work _and_ the really useful stuff encompassed in the original FY2011 proposals.
Of course, if there’s enough money in the (very unclear if needed) advanced HLV fund to pay off Nelson with the Ares fireworks – and if we don’t have to pay off yet more delegations with more Constellation crap – that I could live with.
We don’t need depots to go beyond Earth orbit.
True, as long as one does not intend to do much beyond Earth orbit.
If one does wish to do much in space, then low cost access is required, and that means depots. High flight rates and general usability of space requires stocking various stuff locally in space. Depots are on the critical path to opening up space.
Depots are on the critical path to opening up space.
Actually, they’re not. Propellant transfer, yes, but not full depots. Cheap and reliable access to space is too important to have to wait for anything else, even something as useful as depots.
If depots proved impossible (I know, very unlikely), would you give up on RLVs, CATS and lunar commerce? I know I wouldn’t.
If “compromises” such as being forced to inhale Ares 1 type tests at outrageous costs pile up, then we end up losing most of the vital R&D steps and/or commercial crew.
Nelson’s talking about adding money to the NASA budget to pay for the tests, so it wouldn’t come out of the R&D or commercial crew. At least, not this year.
In the long run, of course, the inevitable overruns will pile up and NASA will be right back in the situation where it is now, but there might be a short-term window of opportunity.
I think the trick for anyone dealing with NASA is to focus on projects that can be completed within such windows, rather than relying on long-term commitments. Of course, it’s hard to predict how long such windows will remain open.
In the meantime, the suborbital companies will be operating under the radar screen, developing the technologies needed for real access to space.
Depots are on the critical path to opening up space.
“Actually, they’re not. Propellant transfer, yes, but not full depots. Cheap and reliable access to space is too important to have to wait for anything else, even something as useful as depots.”
That sounds like a flag and footprints mission to me – not cheap and reliable access to space. Money and space is too important to waste on flags and footprints. What does one do when one gets there? Come home again due to an inability to get restocked (operate a depot)?
If depots proved impossible (I know, very unlikely), would you give up on RLVs, CATS and lunar commerce? I know I wouldn’t.
This is a nonsensical question, perhaps indicative of planetary chauvinism? A depot on every planet but none are allowed in between.
Perhaps you instead mean to argue the economically optimal placement of depots in any given case?
The general thrust of Martijn Meijering’s comments seem to be that Fuel Depots are a fair way off. I’m not sure that is correct. Dallas Bienhoff (Boeing’s Manager for In-Space and Surface Systems ), on the Space Show 3 May 2010 (number 1355) seemed to think that with Orbital Express and all the work that has been done transfering fluids about on the ISS, it’s pretty much a solved problem. It is just a matter of transfering what we know into actual hardware.
That is not to say that there are still not problems. But they are more in the nature of setting standards, and bending metal.
Anyway I see that at the NASA Exploration Enterprise Workshop the other day Laurie Leshin gave a list of the missions under the new NASA plan. The relevant one is
2015: advanced in-space propellant transfer and storage (Flagship Technology Demonstrator)
If they follow through with this, and demonstrate fuel depots, then the technology is going to be well and truely in place by the time we need it.
The knowledge of how to transfer propellants has been around for a long time. I mean just consider all those launchers which are filled on pad before takeoff (nearly all liquid rockets). One might say there is a problem on how to do it in space in an automated fashion. However Progress did precisely this like all the time. The problems hardly sound insoluble. It is merely a matter of bending some metal and doing it.
The major problem is why to do it in the first place. IMO a depot should be able to service a lot more than just Moon travels. It should also be able to provide fuel for reboost of GEO rockets using a tug. This could be an optional service to provide more useful satellite payload, using the same rocket, for a given mission which requires it.
Yes I think the question is more about being able to store/warehouse stuff off planet for use as required. Fundamentally I do not see any way that this actually can be proved impossible (proving a negative), especially considering the extent to which this has already been done.
Also, I do not see that low cost space is really practically possible without this depot capability – every mission would otherwise need to be completely self sufficient – its own mobile depot. This infers no trade in space, etc., which I think largely prevents specialization and a viable space economy. Hence I stand by my statement that depots are on the critical path to low cost space.
My point is not that spacecraft should not refuel beyond Earth orbit, in fact for a lander L1/L2 would be the obvious location. My points are as follows:
– We need reusable and hence refuelable spacecraft more than we need even cheap lift since spacecraft are so much more expensive than even launches.
– We don’t need to spend money on a dedicated depot initially, a refuelable lander or orbital precursor can serve as a makeshift depot whereas a dedicated depot cannot serve as a makeshift lander.
– We need cheap lift more than we need refuelable upper stages.
– Doing it as soon as possible, as cheaply as possible and with as little risk as possible is more important than doing it with minimal IMLEO. After all life is short and politicians are capricious. In addition, once we have reusable spacecraft cost = IMLEO * cost/kg to first order and having a market for propellant in LEO will reduce cost/kg by an order of magnitude whereas IMLEO can only be reduced by a much smaller factor, except perhaps in the very long term.
– Storable propellant is good enough for refuelable spacecraft and good enough to lead to RLVs. The necessary technology is more than 30 years old. With (and maybe even without) existing upper stages for TLI this is affordable enough for government funded moon missions. After all, you don’t need to outrun the bear, you only need to outrun your competitor. And with RLVs it is probably even good enough for commercial activity on the moon, or at least in lunar orbit.
We could do this today. We could have done it in the early eighties. If we had, we might have had a government funded moon base and commercial orbital hotels today. The limitations are not technical. Depots are not on the critical path to cheap lift. Politicians are. For a variety of reasons there is no money for exploration. If and when it finally materialises, we will have the technology to go and explore and open up space in the process. We’ve had the technology for thirty years.
Note – as some haven’t – that this does not mean I’m saying research into cryogenic depots should not be funded or even that it shouldn’t have high priority. Note – as some haven’t – that it does not mean I’m saying storable propellant is preferable for landers.
It does mean that we know enough today to educate both the general public and politicans that HLVs are not necessary, new kerolox engines are not necessary, large heatshields are not necessary and that the more of these obstacles we put on the road to exploration, the more obstacles we put on the road to opening up space.
It also means we mustn’t tell supporters and potential supporters of commercial space that the emergence of RLVs soon is strongly dependent on development of new technology, specifically cryogenic depots. It isn’t. Our case is much stronger than is generally recognised, even in New Space circles.
Having said all that, let me add a caveat.
Fighting HLVs and dedicated NASA launchers that would take away payloads from RLVs is more important than doing exploration and even propellant transfer soon. To the degree an obstacle to exploration is an obstacle to HLVs (kerolox engines, 7.5m fairing etc) we could live with it as long as there was no other way to get rid of the HLVs.
But we should educate people that if we intend to go beyond LEO in a sustainable way as soon as possible (ostensibly official policy), we can do it today. We should also make sure that any obstacle to HLVs soon doesn’t backfire on us by simply leading to a kerolox Atlas Phase 2 used only by NASA a few years later. While better than an SDLV it would still be a formidable obstacle to opening up space.
The major problem is why to do it in the first place.
To make government money spent on exploration (or on manned spaceflight in general) a lot more useful by having it open up space as a free side effect.
This does not require a depot and it does not require NASA selling propellant in orbit. All it requires is for NASA to buy propellant in orbit, and then presumably do something useful with it, like, you know, propelling a spacecraft. The refuelable spacecraft is on the critical path. The depot and GEO applications aren’t.
So according to the Barbree article, there is some vague timeline/sequence forming up under the Obama plan, after all. The sequence is: a 6 day lunar flyby, a 30 day Sun Earth lagrange point mission, weeks long asteroid ‘landings’, finally a 1-2 year long Mars flyby. Not bad. That’s a sequence I heartily support.
But the timeline makes me suspect it’s still only a fantasy program. The only date attached to any of those missions is the first Asteroid mission, scheduled for 2025. That means the preceding lunar flyby should occur years earlier, say 2020 at the very latest.
So where in the Obama plan is there an appropriate spacecraft available in time for the 2020 lunar mission? Orion would be perfect for such a mission but Obama cancelled Orion. And since the ISS will be eating up NASA budget between 2016 and 2020, where could money for a 2020 lunar spacecraft come from anyway?
The new Obama plan still strikes me as a scheme for a Potemkin NASA, intended to con space supporters, at least long enough to cover the 2012 election.
The new Obama plan still strikes me as a scheme for a Potemkin NASA, intended to con space supporters, at least long enough to cover the 2012 election.
Funny, that’s how Constellation struck me. They started it with a Potemkin PDR and a Potemkin “flight test.”
So?
Oh, I get it. I suppose if I were a supporter of the Ares rockets or the Griffin architecture that was supposed to be a devastating rejoinder. But I’m not now nor have I ever been a supporter of Griffin’s distortion of VSE.
I will say this though about Griffin’s wacky scheme. The ex-administrator probably truly believed it was the right way to go, despite all the accumulating evidence, even up to the bitter end.
I have no such faith in Obama. I think he is fully capable of a big con since he’s done it before. I’m just very disappointed that so many people such as yourself who I have great respect for seem to have been taken in. Conned at least to the point of seeing of the Obama plan only what they prefer to see while rationalizing the rest of the plan. Such as rationalizing the Obama plan’s commitment to HLV.
While the Obama scheme to support manned commercial flight is fabulous, most of the rest of the plan is either dumb, such as flying ISS forever, or unbelievable, such as the schedule for manned exploration. I seem to be part of the small universe of people who can see the small amount of good of the Obama plan without also swallowing the B.S. too.
I haven’t been “taken in” by anything. By your “logic,” anything that Obama comes up with cannot be trusted, so what’s the point in even discussing the plans? I can only look at the policy, and pronounce it a vast improvement over what it was before. Whether or not this administration will actually follow through on it is an entirely different issue, and one over which I have no control.