I’ve been reluctant to weigh in on the latest back and forth between Paul Spudis and Clark Lindsey.
I have a couple quick points. First, in his lead sentence:
The space community has fractured since the disastrous roll out of NASA’s “new direction.”
The community has been fractured since 2005, when Mike Griffin and Scott Horowitz ignored all of the recommendations of the CE&I contractors, and foisted the Scotty rocket on it. It’s not something that happened in February. What happened in February was that people who wanted a more sane approach became ascendant, and there has been understandable resistance to it from those whose rice bowls are being broken.
Second, I was slightly astonished to read this in one of his follow-up comments:
As for propellant depots, I think that they make sense if we can supply them with propellant made from space resources, in this case, propellant derived from lunar water. If we end up launching all the propellant from Earth, then nothing is fundamentally changed, except to eliminate the need for a heavy lift launch vehicle.
Oh, really? Is that all it does? It merely eliminates the waste of tens of billions of dollars on an unnecessary vehicle that could instead be invested in a few dozen lander programs from the likes of Masten and Armadillo? Yeah, I guess that’s no big deal.
Look, I feel Paul’s pain, and as I’ve said, my biggest disagreement with the new policy direction is that it is so dismissive of the moon as a goal. But as I’ve also said, specific destinations, other than BEO, are irrelevant right now, and as the Augustine panel pointed out, descending into gravity wells wasn’t affordable any time soon with any of the plans on the table. Paul is concerned about the lack of an explicit goal (indeed, a seeming contempt of such a goal on the part of both the president and the administrator) of establishing any sort of lunar surface capability, but the reality is that it was never a realistic or affordable goal with the trajectory the agency was on. This president (at least given the trajectory he’s on) will no longer be president three years from now, and we’ll almost certainly have a new NASA administrator as well. There was no plan for serious money being put into a lander prior to 2013, so realistically, I don’t understand what Paul thinks that he has lost, at least in any irretrievable way. From the standpoint of getting back to the moon, we won’t even have slipped the schedule. And that point remains even if the nation is unfortunate enough to have to put up with this administration until 2017. He has plenty of time to persuade people in a new administration that the moon remains a worthy goal, and to identify more practical ways to make it happen. And at least with the new direction, we’ll be a lot closer to doing it affordably, having stopped wasting so many billions on vehicles that weren’t going to get us there, and started spending money on a more robust ETO infrastructure that will get us much closer to everywhere.
How do you reckon we will have been spending money on a more robust ETO infrastructure? I see little in the current plans that moves us in that direction, other than getting rid of the Shuttle stack and perhaps even NASA launchers and HLVs if funding is cut a couple of years down the road.
What’s Commercial Crew? Chopped liver?
No of course not, but I don’t see the current planning moving us much closer to cheap lift. Commercial Crew is great and who knows the combination of that, CRS and new entrants like SpaceX might lower launch prices by enough to let Bigelow succeed. I certainly hope so. But I’m not expecting RLVs to emerge soon as a result of the current plan.
If the current plan results in depots, it will provide a useful new market for them that allows them to do extensive flight testing with low-cost payloads to ready them for the passenger market.
But as I’ve also said, specific destinations, other than BEO, are irrelevant right now
I would go even further, I doubt even BEO is necessary or particularly desirable at this early stage. Cheap access to LEO and the capacity to do stuff cheaply in LEO is sufficient to start things happening in space.
LEO is much easier than BEO, and once one has LEO I expect BEO will naturally happen as the economics justify it. No need to prematurely try and force BEO by actively wasting money on it that could be far better spent on other things – like on heavy launch (joke! :).
Once one is in LEO, I suspect one is actually in practice much closer than halfway to anywhere – but the first priority is to be able to get to and do stuff in LEO at low cost.
@Rand:
For orbit raising of comsats from LEO to GTO/GEO you mean? That’s certainly an important potential source of funding, but it’s not an easy one. First generation LEO depots might only hold propellants for about a month, which is not a whole lot of time for a first generation RLV to launch enough propellant to raise a satellite. The satellite also has to be cooperative if it is to survive in LEO, which is not its natural environment. I’m not convinced LEO depots are either necessary or sufficient to tap this market, though both are a serious possibility.
But even if this does work, it is only after those depots are operational that we will see work on cheap lift begin. An exploration program could provide another source of demand, as you have long advocated of course. But that requires compatible spacecraft and work on that will likely not begin until the first prototype depot is operational which is likely at least five years away. All in all I don’t see work on RLVs begin in earnest for at least ten years, not as a result of the Obama plan anyway. It might take another ten years to achieve cheap lift. Twenty years in total, and only if we’re lucky. At that rate suborbital spacecraft may have evolved into orbital craft of their own accord. In that case the Obama plan will have done *nothing* to hasten the emergence of cheap lift.
A bit more money for New Space would be a very meagre result. I don’t think Armadillo and Masten are very natural candidates for NASA landers, if anything using them is likely to delay manned exploration of the moon. Better use one of the Old Space majors. I think the terrestrial landers they are building are much more useful as prototypes of suborbital spacecraft which might eventually evolve into orbital ones.
Providing large demand for propellant soon seems much more likely to result in cheap lift soon than some grants to New Space. If that means Old Space players end up developing the first RLVs, so be it. They may be more expensive, but with DC-X McDonnell Douglas was building a larger version of the Armadillo and Masten landers seventeen years ago, on what was still a shoestring budget by Old Space standards. Once we have cheap lift there will be plenty of work for New Space. And even if not, isn’t New Space just a means to an end (commercial development of space), not an end in and of itself?
Under the new Obama plan, we get commercial manned flight to LEO two to four years earlier than we would have anyway, if the SpaceX estimates were accurate. That’s certainly a good thing.
On the other hand NASA is still committed to HLV, and in addition no longer plans on retiring ISS in 2016. Now the ISS will keep going beyond 2020, right during the window when Bigelow hopes to begin operating his full scale space station.
I don’t see how propping up the great white ISS elephant promotes commercial access to space. If an orbital experiment needs to be done after 2015, why not lease space on a Bigelow station instead of using the ISS?
And keeping ISS flying beyond 2015 also absorbs funding NASA is supposedly going to use for BEO manned equipment. How is that a more realistic schedule than the POR boondoggle?
There is a lot that is wrong the the new Obama budget and I don’t see why some consider it heresy to point that out.
I don’t see why some consider it heresy to point that out.
Who are you talking about?
I’ve blogged my thoughts. Paul Spudis overstates his case IMHO.
First generation LEO depots might only hold propellants for about a month
Then they’re probably storing the wrong fuel.
> == But as I’ve also said, specific destinations, other than BEO, are irrelevant right now===
But as the last few decades have shown – if NASA doesn’t have a goal and a due date, they just dither and waste money.
>== What happened in February was that people who wanted a
> more sane approach became ascendant, and there has been
> understandable resistance to it from those whose rice bowls
> are being broken.
Oh like thats a unbiased description. no one could have any objection other then wanting to line their pockets.
>=== It merely eliminates the waste of tens of billions of dollars on an
> unnecessary vehicle that could instead be invested in a few dozen
> lander programs from the likes of Masten and Armadillo?==
Yeah, like that’s where the money would be diverted to. The big wastefull HLV has support – hence its fundable. “..a few dozen lander programs..” from start up, isn’t fundable.
>== I don’t understand what Paul thinks that he has lost, at least
> in any irretrievable way. ===
Except all the NASA and contractor teams and infrastructure — adn supporting aero firms. Any beyond LEO projects or systems.
>== and started spending money on a more robust ETO
> infrastructure that will get us much closer to everywhere.
Oh please! We’ld be lucky if we could field a Commercial crew by 2016, Obamas plan would develop nothing,certainly no robust ETO infastructure. And that ignores Obamas proposals got no support – adn they are backing away from it.
Martijn
Who am I talking about? The Obama plan supporters who immediately attack critics of the Obama plan with accusations that the critics support the POR. There is no middle ground with those people.
It’s so bad and so knee jerk a reaction, that more than once over at spacepolitics I still got that reaction to criticism of the Obama budget even when my comments specifically included anti-POR content too.
> Rand Simberg Says:
>
> If the current plan results in depots, it will provide a useful new market
> for them that allows them to do extensive flight testing with ==
If it results in depots (which isn’t planed) – but the insistence on HLVs suggests they don’t want to go there. So, no market.
Under the new Obama plan, we get commercial manned flight to LEO two to four years earlier than we would have anyway, if the SpaceX estimates were accurate.
Elon Musk stated at least 2 years ago that Dragon could cut the US manned spaceflight capability gap to between zero and 2 years. So if your claim is correct Dragon must be ready to launch humans to LEO… now.
Cecil, thats utterly false and you know it. Musk said he can have Dragon manned spaceflight running two years after getting NASA funding for the LAS. He has also said he will have it ready by 2013 even if NASA doesn’t fund it. Since he hasn’t gotten funding for LAS yet to date, then he’s not ready for manned flight yet. So stop making false claims.
There is no middle ground with the POR because any POR derived vehicle will use systems which are directly and indirectly orders of magnitude more expensive than the alternatives. Further, considering the likely operating costs, any POR derived vehicle is not worth any investment – even if it was free it would be too expensive to operate.
Why are so many people in the US so economically illiterate at the moment? Economic success does not come from throwing yet more good money after bad. Does not anyone get the second law of thermodynamics anymore? Economic efficiency?
Then they’re probably storing the wrong fuel.
Sometimes those oft-maligned carbon atoms *do* come in handy…
“Elon Musk stated at least 2 years ago that Dragon could cut the US manned spaceflight capability gap to between zero and 2 years. So if your claim is correct Dragon must be ready to launch humans to LEO… now.”
Elon is a great businessman and visionary. Sadly he is not a wizard.
Is there any firm commitment to buy consumables delivered to ISS in the Obama Plan?
All of this arguing might be worth it if there was any real reason to send people into space, but there isn’t.
Kirk
Then why are you even commenting to this thread? Do you believe such snark is convincing anyone to side with you against manned spaceflight?
Pete
Is your comment directed to me?
There are two potential markets for fuel depots. Satellites, especially Comsats, and BEO.
The problem with fuel depots for satellites is the lack of a market for them since the satellite manufacturers appear to have no interest in them.
The Shuttle demonstrated the technology for in-space refueling of satellites back in the early 1980’s. Yet, there was no movement of satellite manufacturers to go that route. Why? Answer that question and solve it and you won’t need NASA funding for them to happen.
As for the use of fuel depots for BEO. You need to have a determination to go BEO for them to make sense. Otherwise they are an orphan technology. The BEO dates for Obama plan are so far in the future its unlikely anything will come of them.
In terms of NEO’s its the lack of suitable targets. It appears that finding the right NEO with the right rotational rate and the right orbit to make a mission to it practical is like looking for a needle in the haystack. Out of the hundreds cataloged only a half dozen or so MAY work. And it may end up that the number is zero.
In terms of Mars in the mid-2030’s, well, Mars has always seemed about 20-25 years in the future. Perhaps one day…
Rand, can I assume by your lack of reply to my comments that you agree with them?
Clark’s post was really about the futility of continuing to write about a vision which is completely disconnected from any political reality. No-one is asking Paul Spudis for a master plan of how to colonize the solarsystem. They’re not asking Bob Zubrin, Buzz Aldrin or you or me either. Maybe they’ve figured out that grand schemes don’t work.
My particular annoyance with Spudis is that he’s so set on having *humans* on the Moon doing ISRU that he’s uninterested in considering how enabling robotic lunar ISRU is to actually putting humans anywhere in the solarsystem.
In short Spudis has a “vision” and anything which dejustifies his vision is immediately wrong or just uninteresting to him.
Just trying to give some perspective to all the wasted energy on here, Brad.
Rand, can I assume by your lack of reply to my comments that you agree with them?
No, that’s never a safe assumption. Often I’m just busy.
Kirk, I know you mean there’s no reason for the government to be putting humans into space. For the rest of us “just cause” is sufficient.. unless you’ve recently become anti-capitalist 🙂
*sigh* … Jerry Pournelle was right, back in the mid-Eighties, when he said that what we really need is to figure out some way that people can get filthy rich by going into space. Then the individual programs — and squabbles like this one — won’t matter.
Kelly Starks says;
“Obamas plan would develop nothing,certainly no robust ETO infastructure.”
see
http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=20493&catid=6#c
The Obama plan is just rolling out what has been recommended in various reports over the last 10 years.
“2011: human robotics interfaces (ISS) (ETDD)
2011-2016: 3 SpaceX demos and initial 12 operational cargo flights (ISS) (C3PO)
2012: ALHAT (autonomous landing and hazard avoidance) (ETDD)
2012: biomed tech demo (ISS) (HRP)
2012-2016: 1 Orbital demo and initial 8 operational cargo flights (ISS) (C3PO)
2013: radiation risk model (HRP)
2014: advanced in-space propulsion mission (FTD)
2014: closed-loop ECLSS (ETDD)
2014: high-energy systems (ETDD)
2014: NEO robotic precursor (RP)
2014: performance health tech demo (ISS) (HRP)
2014: commercial crew demo flights (ISS) (C3PO)
2015: Lunar lander robotic precursor (RP)
2015: advanced in-space propulsion (ISS) (ETDD)
2015: advanced in-space propellant transfer and storage (FTD)
2015: LOX/methane or LOX/H2 in-space engine demo (HLPT)
2015: another biomed tech demo (ISS) (HRP)
2015-2020: commercial crew missions (ISS) (C3PO)
2015-2020: Orion Emergency Rescue Module missions (ISS) (Orion)
2016: lightweight/inflatable modules and closed loop life support (ISS) (FTD)
2016: ISRU (ETDD)
2016: Mars robotic precursor (RP)
2016: LOX/RP prototype engine (HLPT)
2016: further radiation risk model (HRP)
2017: aero-assist/entry, descent, and landing (FTD)
2017: performance health suite demo (ISS) (HRP)
2018: EVA demo (ISS, maybe for suitport/suitlock tech) (ETDD)
2018: another Mars robotic precursor (RP)
2018: Mars Medical Suite demo (ISS) (HRP)
2019: another NEO robotic precursor (RP)
2020: LOX/RP operational engine, thrust >= 1M lbs (HLPT)
2020: nuclear thermal propulsion (ETDD)”
Taken together this adds up to he infrastructure we’ve needed for a while and which Constellation wasn’t delivering.
rand rand rand
obama will be president for two whole terms. by the time the next election rolls around the economy will be significantly recovered, he will have successfully reduced the deficit, ended some major war operations, and passed health care reform that believe it or not, a lot of people support
“and I have successfully cut the deficit to almost half what it was under the previous administration” get used to that line, because it is coming
ol’ ‘bama, he is an economic war president and the power of the incumbent will be too much for whatever rapscallion the republican party puts up.
Roughly speaking, the only wealth that matters is how many genes (of all flavors) we leave behind. With that in mind, the wealth of this solar system alone is on the order of billions of times that of the Earth. That meets my definition of filthy rich.
The problem has never been one of a lack of wealth in space, it has always been one of extremely excessive entry barriers due to a lack of basic economic focus and a lack of an impetuous to overcome those entry barriers.
Maybe this great recession will provide a sufficient impetuous for people to emigrate, we could all become economic migrants. Considering the Obama Administration’s desire to keep spending any future growth for short term benefit and not balance the books and create actual growth infers this is going to be a very long double dip “recession”.
Then they’re probably storing the wrong fuel.
Well, if that’s the case then the Obama plan will still not have been stimulating cheap lift by very much, because if you are willing to use noncryogenic propellants, then the required technology exists already. Having another propulsion option never hurts of course, but there are lots of things you could do with slow aerobraking, noncryogenic propellants, partially noncryogenic propellants and/or high Isp propulsion. LOX/LH2 is not obviously the best propellant for a reusable OMV.
The problem with fuel depots for satellites is the lack of a market for them since the satellite manufacturers appear to have no interest in them.
Refueling satellites in GEO isn’t the only application, refueling an orbital maneuvering vehicle in LEO that will take it to GTO or GEO is another. This isn’t being done now because of the added complexity. But in combination with small RLVs this could be very interesting since as with exploration most of the mass is propellant which is nearly perfectly divisible. Depending on the size of your RLV you might even fit a dry launched satellite on it. Conversely, orbit raising could provide an initial (commercial!) market for RLVs. This is the same argument as with NASA exploration and for the same reasons, just with different high energy orbits.
You need to have a determination to go BEO for them to make sense. Otherwise they are an orphan technology. The BEO dates for Obama plan are so far in the future its unlikely anything will come of them.
They wouldn’t be an orphan technology for orbit raising. But that doesn’t depend strongly on what the Obama administrations does. Companies that want to develop RLVs could start work on this now. But if depots are to be useful, they need refuelable spacecraft and presumably a destination for that spacecraft, the sooner the better. And once you have a refuelable spacecraft you don’t strictly need a dedicated depot. If you want to stimulate cheap lift, then the faster and more cheaply this happens the better. I find the Obama plan very disappointing in that regard.
Why are so many people in the US so economically illiterate at the moment?
It’s not just the moment. I’m reading ‘applied economics’ by Thomas Sowell and he calls it stage one thinking. He very clearly illustrates why politicians never make it to stage two or beyond. They have no motivation to do so if their only interest is getting elected. Lazy thinking people (that would be mainly the media) accept the stage one reasoning (otherwise known as stuck on stupid.) Between the politicians and the media, the average person that never reads blogs like Rands and others, don’t have a chance.
Have a listen to the latest archived episode of The Space Show (http://thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1385) for an indication of how the Airforce in conjunction with a small faction inside NASA is developing that kind of thinking. It’s not just about inventing the technology, it’s also about inventing the markets.
Mike Lorrey: Cecil, thats utterly false and you know it.
I know no such thing, it is what I heard/read Musk to say.
Musk said he can have Dragon manned spaceflight running two years after getting NASA funding for the LAS. He has also said he will have it ready by 2013 even if NASA doesn’t fund it.
It only takes him one year longer to complete Dragon if NASA doesn’t fund any of the work? So how does the Obama plan cut “two to four years” from manned Dragon first flight?
So stop making false claims.
You first.
Martin Meijerling says,
”
First generation LEO depots might only hold propellants for about a month, which is not a whole lot of time for a first generation RLV to launch enough propellant to raise a satellite
”
In case you are not aware, industrial cryocoolers exist that can chill down to 77K, enough to keep LOX and LCH4 liquid. Take a look at the cryocoolers offered by this company:
http://www.qdrive.com/UI/ProductsListing.aspx?mcid=111&pcid=111&ccid=111
Of course, propellant choice is just a matter of what flight rate you want to support. One could build a propellant depot right now to indefinitely store UDMH and N2O4. Though usage of UDMH and N2O4 would require more propellant-stocking flights, such a propellant stock could be built up incrementally over time using whatever launchers exist at that time with no boiloff worries whatsoever.
Cecil
Is it really so complicated? SpaceX always has had plans for manned Dragon whether or not they received NASA funding. And availability of manned Dragon is driven in large part by SpaceX business success.
We have already seen how SpaceX has fallen behind for various reasons in the timeline they originally estimated for the Falcon rockets. I just assumed that absent NASA funds, manned Dragon would also fall behind the schedule estimates of SpaceX.
That’s what I meant by NASA funding speeding up manned Dragon by as much as four years. Not because NASA funding makes Dragon available sooner, but because an otherwise purely privately funded Dragon might be available so much LATER.
Sheesh!
Reading comprehension, Cecil.
First, it was Brad who posted the language you evidently have problems with, not Mike.
Second, Brad was pretty obviously – to me, at least – referring to a comparison between Musk’s two to three year projected schedule for manned Dragon ops from receipt of a ‘Go’ order, to the Augustine Commission’s estimated six to seven year minimum gap between now and earliest possible operational capability of Ares I/Constellation.
Brad’s use of the word ‘commercial’ is, admittedly, infelicitous, but if occasional clumsy wording rendered intent undiscernable, most blogs, including this one, would be ghost towns by now. It was pretty obvious to me – and, I suspect, to everyone else here except, apparently, you – that Brad was comparing commercial apples to Ares I oranges. Try mentally striking out the word ‘commercial’ in what Brad wrote and you’ll see what I take to be his actual intended meaning there.
In any event, Brad was not purporting to compare something Elon Musk actually said to something he didn’t actually say. Musk’s declaration was always conditional on a ‘Go’ order. He never made any unconditional claim, two years ago or any other time, that Dragon would be carrying people to orbit two to three years after his remarks were delivered. Now if NASA had said ‘Go’ two years ago, you’d have a point, but they didn’t and you don’t.
Get some sleep, dude. You’re usually a lot sharper than this.
1. > Pete Says:
June 27th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
> There is no middle ground with the POR because any
> POR derived vehicle will use systems which are directly
> and indirectly orders of magnitude more expensive than
> the alternatives. Further, considering the likely operating
> costs, any POR derived vehicle is not worth any investment
> – even if it was free it would be too expensive to operate.
>
> Why are so many people in the US so economically illiterate
> at the moment?
Why are you applying economics to a political system? PORs great strength is it spends flagrantly in a lot of important congressional districts. As long as it has the votes it doesn’t mater what it costs – Congress will have Tresury print the money.
Past that to be fair it also holds NASA feet to a definite goal they need to deliver to. The absence of that in Obama’s plan is a MAJOR point of contention with Congress, which wants some way to hold NASA accountable to doing something.
> Al Says: June 27th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
> Is there any firm commitment to buy consumables
> delivered to ISS in the Obama Plan?
They contracted for cargo transoprt including food oxygen, etc. Fuel and oxidizer is shiped up by Russian refueling tankers, but I don’t think you’d call that “purchased”.
As long as it has the votes it doesn’t mater what it costs – Congress will have Tresury print the money.
It no longer has the votes.
Past that to be fair it also holds NASA feet to a definite goal they need to deliver to.
No, it doesn’t. NASA had a goal of building a space station by 1992. They had failed to do so, until the goal was restructured in 1993, and it still took it almost seventeen years. So if schedule is part of the goal, they obviously didn’t need to deliver to it. Similarly, they were not delivering to the goal of a return to the moon by 2020, or even closing the gap to 2014. NASA doesn’t need to have a definite goal to continue to get funding. It’s all about the jobs. The POR is for people who want NASA to be a jobs program. The new direction offers some actual hope that it will accomplish something useful with the money.
Ken,
[[[Why are so many people in the US so economically illiterate at the moment?]]]
Because to move beyond the illiteracy level you really need a solid grounding in math (Calculus at least, DE preferably) and statistics/probability (at least at the multivariate level) otherwise its just philosophy and pretty pictures (graphs). The housing bubble was a classic example where folks just refused to recognized what the numbers were telling them. The dot.com bust was another.
So rather the become literate its easier to listen to the talking heads, bloggers and politicians that reflect your views or sound best.
The current BP spill is a good example. Just as environmentalists exploited Three Mile Island to turn the nation anti-nuclear, they are now turning the nation anti-offshore oil with the result being higher energy costs, higher unemployment and a weaker dollar because of increased energy imports…
Because to move beyond the illiteracy level you really need a solid grounding in math (Calculus at least, DE preferably) and statistics/probability (at least at the multivariate level) otherwise its just philosophy and pretty pictures (graphs).
I do have a solid grounding in mathematical analysis (including DE and functional analysis) and a less solid grounding in statistics but you don’t need any of these to understand why central banking, fiat money and large budget deficits are a bad idea.
> Frediiiie Says: June 27th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
>
>Kelly Starks says;
> “Obamas plan would develop nothing,certainly no robust ETO infastructure.”
>
> see [ long list]
Thats not Obamas plan – thats a post of a presentation at a conference – much isn’t space archetecture or infastructure – others (nuclear thermal rockets by 202?!) is almost a joke.
1. > Rand Simberg Says: June 28th, 2010 at 6:25 am
>> As long as it has the votes it doesn’t mater what
>> it costs – Congress will have Tresury print the money.
> It no longer has the votes.
Doesn’t it? Obama’s proposal doesn’t, adn Congress is thrashing to undo Boldens little game (hope he doesn’t plan no any support from congress folks for anythnig again EVER!
>> Past that to be fair it also holds NASA feet to
>> a definite goal they need to deliver to.
> No, it doesn’t. NASA had a goal of building a space station by 1992.
> They had failed to do so, until the goal was restructured in 1993, ==
Yes, but congress could see (and control) what was going no, and deal with it. NASA ni eternal nebulas study never delivered anything.
Partly the incompetence NASA showed in the instances you listed is why Congress is demanding something they can hold them accountable for.
>== NASA doesn’t need to have a definite goal to continue to get funding.=
Theres so much pork flowing out of Washington, they don’t need NASA for that anymore.
>== The new direction offers some actual hope that it
> will accomplish something useful with the money.
No one ni congress believes that, and decades of NASA history in such situations, and the laughable list of Obama proposal goals, STRONGLY suggests they are right.
Sorry to drag this OT… SpaceX apparently is going to be conducting some form of test Tuesday at their McGregor site. Does anybody know offhand if there a way to observe such a thing, or is being in the neighborhood to hear the roar the best one can hope for?
> Martijn Meijering Says:
>
> For orbit raising of comsats from LEO to GTO/GEO you mean? ==
Has any comsat customer expressed interst in contracting for this service? Is there any evidence it would be cheaper?
Kelly,
[[[Has any comsat customer expressed interst in contracting for this service? Is there any evidence it would be cheaper?]]]
The short answer is no. By the time the fuel runs out the technology used on the satellite is far enough out of date to make replacement more practical and economical. That is why Dennis Wingo’s Orbital Recovery system made more sense. It just stabilized the satellite if needed for an extra year or two, or help moved it into a disposal orbit if needed.
Its like the batteries in hybrid autos. In 10 years you will need to replace them for $10,000-15,000, but in ten years the cars will be so old it won’t be worth the effort or expense.
Martijn Meijering,
[[[I do have a solid grounding in mathematical analysis (including DE and functional analysis) and a less solid grounding in statistics but you don’t need any of these to understand why central banking, fiat money and large budget deficits are a bad idea.]]]
That math is the starting point. Next you need to read some academic level books on macroeconomic theory that use it to understand the arguments for and against each of those issues. As well as some history that of why we got off the gold standard and why we moved to a central banking system.
By the time the fuel runs out the technology used on the satellite is far enough out of date to make replacement more practical and economical.
As I explained earlier this is about orbit raising for a satellite, not for refueling it. It’s the orbital transfer vehicle that would be refueled, not the satellite, though not fueling the satellite until it arrives in LEO would have additional benefits.
The idea is that once you have a small RLV, one that is far too small to launch a fully fueled comsat to LEO let alone GTO or GEO, you could launch the propellant and comsat separately. If the comsat doesn’t support refueling it would likely still have to be launched on an expendable launcher, although this could now be a smaller one. The propellant for injection into GTO would be launched separately and much more cheaply. The difference in effective launch price could be split among the client and the RLV provider.
OTVs have long been considered, but existing launchers are big enough to make the extra complications not worth it. An RLV with an order of magnitude lower launch prices could change that. Conversely, such orbit raising could conceivably provide enough demand for launch services to make a small RLV economically viable.