Slashdot Mirror

are we SURE that we need the collision energies this new collider will give us?

Yes, if you read the reports they give some examples:

"However, several experimental facts do require the extension of the Standard Model and explanations are needed for observations such as the abundance of matter over antimatter, the striking evidence for dark matter and the non-zero neutrino masses. Theoretical issues such as the hierarchy problem, and, more in general, the dynamical origin of the Higgs mechanism, do likewise point to the existence of physics beyond the Standard Model."

Maybe the money would be better spent on bio-medical research, genetic manipulation of food crops, Fusion energy commercialization or space exploration?

Huge amounts of money are already going towards bio-medical research, both by governments and commercial interests: "Globally, in excess of US$200bn is invested each year in biomedical research." link
There is already a multi-billion dollar international research project on fusion energy (see ITER). Fusion energy commercialization in an engineering challenge and not fundamental research and is already be addressed by commercial investment: Tokamak Energy, Commonwealth Fusion Systems, TAE Technologies, General Fusion, Helion Energy, LPPFusion, Proton Scientific and others.
Space exploration is being funded: "global government investment in space exploration totaled $14.6 billion in 2017" link and space exploration is also going commercial, witness SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, and United Launch Alliance.

And if ULAs launch platforms are NOT person-rated, then it doesn't matter a whit that Boeing owns the crew compartment all on its lonesome if that is the only system they can use.

Really, it is like you don't even bother to read your own post and pause to realize that we are talking about the same thing.

Here is the paper that ULA submitted on getting their Delta IV and Atlas V systems up to snuff.

fwiw, I expect that ULA will continue to claim that SpaceX's fuels loading plan is unworkable (and fail to deliver their own person-rated system), while Boeing starts building an adapter to launch on Falcon

Isn't the contents of the tanks kind of nasty?

You're probably thinking of things like hydrazine, or some of the hypergolic mixtures. (A and B are "hypergolic" if mixing A and B results in explosion in milliseconds without needing any initiator, detonator etc. Very good if you want your motor to re-start reliably. The explosion delay is an important characteristic. Milliseconds matter.)

The main fuel in the Centaur stages under discussion are liquid hydrogen ("LH2") and liquid oxygen ("LOX"), but the reliable re-ignition of the engine is controlled by what they refer to as "hypergolic cartridges" - see the engine schematic on page 377 of the Atlas (RT)FM.

Whatever hypergolic mix they use, you don't want to get that shit mixed up with your "intimate lubricant".

I would suspect that having an extra ton or two of oxygen and hydrogen wouldn't be all that hard to turn into an extra ton of H2O,

This is an exothermic reaction. You want to be careful starting those on Earth, where "run away" is an option. You're even more careful about starting them at sea (I work on offshore oil rigs ; trust me on this, or I'll start to talk about the Hot Work Permit system!), where "run away" has a good chance of being followed by "die of hypothermia or shark attack". You're even more careful in the air (see all the stories bout laptop batteries in particular and lithium ion batteries in general). For space ... What did rgb@duke say earlier about "unintended consequences"?

they could designate one tank as the recovery tank.

Having been RTFMing for the Atlas-Centaur system, the Centaur tank is a single stainless steel (OK - NASA speak of "corrosion resistant" steel ; I just bet there's a story behind that. Possibly a blood-stained story. Or maybe a red-fuming-nitric-stained story?) tank body with an internal partition of fibreglass (ugh, sorry Dad! "GFRP") honeycomb which separates the LOX and LH2 sections. Now ... there should be some way to guarantee (or control, actively) the pressure differential across that partition. And already you can see the complications of re-filling one tank from multiple others. Please remember that LOX and LH2 have boiling points 70K apart (at atmospheric pressure) and I dread to think how different their specific latent heats of vapourisation are, or their specific heat capacities.

Doable, I'm sure. Simple, I doubt.

explosive decompression while cutting openings into the tanks

That does not seem to be on the agenda, ever. It's a damned sight harder to close a hole than it is to route cables, hoses etc around the problem.

Just haing a think ... I'd consider procedures like wrapping the exterior of the tank with multi-wall plastic film tubing (here's a concept I was examining for work a while ago) then filling it with water - e.g piss - and letting it freeze for both micrometeorite protection, thermal and radiation insulation. Then cut the LOX-LH2 baffle from the sides, slide it down to the far end and re-glue. Then start to build up unpressurised partitioning as desired, gluing stuff to the wall.

The design NanoRacks are talking of is to build, effectively, a different Centaur-to-payload adaptor which incorporates a pressure door (to keep the LOX in the tank on Earth), and to have a module with a NASA dock, an ISS dock, a Centaur dock, and then the actual planned Centaur payload mated to that. (Check the Atlas User Guide for information on the 3 existing Centaur-Payload Adaptors) Then the payload module is mated to the ISS as planned and the Centaur tank re-mated to it's mounting point using the ISS's arm.

It certainly looks an interesting idea.

No, BE-3. Notice the "upper stage" part. See here, for example.

There will never be a Delta IV Orion with humans on it. Even ULA is planning to sunset Delta and Atlas for a new rocket to replace these. Probably will somehow manage to make it even more expensive for taxpayers and a way to keep retired Air Force colonels employed.

The launch occurred at 6:22AM PST or 3:22AM EST. http://www.ulalaunch.com/ula-s...

The ULA CEO, Tory Bruno, has already offered to help SpaceX fix their problems with landing boosters. Everybody is playing nice! :)

The congressmen in question are Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.).

SpaceX is "competing" (or rather beating the pants off of) a Lockheed Martin / Boeing joint operation called United Launch Alliance (ULA). From their webpage:

ULA program management, engineering, test, and mission support functions are headquartered in Denver, Colo. Manufacturing, assembly and integration operations are located at Decatur, Ala., and...

This is essentially congressmen performing constituent services for their district, albeit in the most cynical way possible.

SpaceX quotes their launch price for the Falcon 9 at $54 Million. All the sources I can find for the Atlas V put the launch cost at $138 Million. Though I couldn't find a price listed on their website, which is really understandable if you think about it.

Actually they do not. The USAF does range control and the EELV launchers are manufactured and handled by ULA : United Launch Alliance which is a joint operation by Boeing and Lockheed Martin. X-37B is done by Boeing for the USAF although there was a demonstrator of it which was run by NASA.

If SpaceX delivers successfully on its manned spaceflight capability, I don't think anyone who actually cares about US manned spaceflight will be disappointed.

The fact that spaceflight has matured to the point that a private enterprise like SpaceX can now conduct this level of mission is a wonderful thing, but that doesn't obviate the need for government-supported and -operated space capabilities. The private sector isn't the only solution. They can apply what we've learned but do not have the same motivations of government space programs, which have resulted in nearly immeasurable advances and payoffs much closer to home.

The government acquisition and contracting system is far from perfect, but NASA, United Space Alliance, and United Launch Alliance are no slouches. ULA has success after success and knows how to reliably get research and military payloads to space. The fact that SpaceX is now in the mix is only a good thing. During this morning's press conference everyone involved from NASA to SpaceX was all smiles.

The weird thing is that we DO have significant launch capabilities. The Atlas and Delta systems have excellent safety records, they haven't been human rated for some odd reason. Seems like a good time to do some paperwork?

NASA are the admin, everything else is sub-contracted out...

Engineers are sub-contactors from the likes of SAIC ( http://www.saic.com/ ) & Booz Allen Hamilton ( http://www.boozallen.com/ ) aswell as the manufacturers (Boeing, ATK, Lockheed Martin, etc).
Launches are handled by ULA ( United Launch Alliance - http://www.ulalaunch.com/ )
In-space operations are handled by USA (United Space Alliance - www.unitedspacealliance.com/ )

Both ULA & USA are joint operations of Boeing & Lockheed Martin.

So yes, Boeing, et al. did handle all that :-)

L1, L2, and L3 (the ones in line with the primary and secondary bodies) are dynamically unstable. It's not like you can park there. L4 and L5 points are much better because they are dynamically stable points, however nobody talks of placing a fuel depot there.

Actually, assuming you're talking about a hydrogen/oxygen fuel depot, you'll have a few pounds of propellant boil-off every day (out of several tons total). You can redirect the boil-off for station-keeping, and it pretty much meets the requirements for station-keeping at L2. There's more details in this ULA publication on depot architectures:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf

Atlas and Delta could be, with relatively minor changes.

United Launch Alliance evaluation (pdf)

VIII. Summary

        The EELVs are ready to support crew lift with flight proven vehicles that will have an even longer legacy of
flights by the crewed IOC date with superior demonstrated reliability compared to any new system. Our schedules
are grounded by ULA’s unmatched legacy of vehicle development and modifications programs and launch pad
developments.
        The Atlas V, with the relatively minor addition of an Emergency Detection System and a dedicated NASA
Vertical Integration Facility (VIF) and Mobile Launch Platform (MLP), is ready for commercial human spaceflight
and complies with NASA human rating standards. The 3 1/2 year integration span is likely shorter than the
development for any new commercial capsule that might fly on it.
        The Delta IV has ample performance to support the existing Orion vehicle, without Black Zones. The Delta IV
can support a mid-2014 Crewed IOC, which is superior to Orion launch alternatives. The proposed 37A pad is a
look-alike counterpart to the existing 37B pad with low development risk. Human rating the Delta is a relatively
modest activity, with the addition of an Emergency Detection System, an array of relatively small redundancy and
safety upgrades, both in the vehicle and the engines that are almost trivial compared to the original development of
the Delta IV.

They keep losing money at it, which is why Boeing and Lockheed merged their launch divisions into a joint venture several years ago (United Launch Alliance ). Even the joint venture is still laying people off. It will be interesting to see if can SpaceX maintain a low cost profile (i.e. how much money is Elon pumping in behind the scenes??) while obtaining successful outcomes. "Faster, better, cheaper" seems to have a poor track record when it comes to space. The Atlas program has completed some 80+ successful launches in a row. High reliability comes at a cost.

What no one has discussed, either in the pro Constellation crowd or those against, is what the propulsion package will be for Flexible Path.

Oh, there's been plenty of discussion about it, just check out the forums over at http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/

The options are pretty much as follows:

Earth to LEO:
* COTS/CCDev (Atlas V, Delta IV, SpaceX, Orbital, etc.)
* DIRECT

LEO to Lagrange/Moon/asteroids/Mars/etc
* Earth Departure Stage, typically based on LH2/LO2, like the ULA's ACES or whatever DIRECT uses
* hypergolics
* using in-orbit refueling (either direct refueling or propellant depots) with either LH2/LO2 or hypergolics
* VASIMR

The point behind the new plans for NASA is that many of these ideas will be developed and tested in parallel, and the ones which work better in practice will be used for actual missions.

You are thinking the X-33, and it was designed to be a scale model of the eventual craft, Venture Star.

Aerospike is just one approach, the one favored by one of the major rocket engine producers, Rocketdyne. Fundimentally, it works as an inverted rocket bell, using the outside air to contain the thrust. It is 90% as efficient as a traditional engine optimized for a particular section of the atmosphere, with the advantage that it keeps the same performance all throughout the atmospheric run.

The other major rocket engine producer, Aerojet, instead is pushing forward a rocket "afterburner, the Thrust Augmented Nozzle. Using a TAN, a traditioninal Hydrolox engine would have kerosene and oxygen injected directly to the engine bell, reducing the overall impulse while greatly improving the thrust, ideal for liftoff, while then throttling back the kerolox to the space-optimized high-isp hydrolox once out of the atmosphere, and smoothly transitioning between the two by throttling back the augmentation, keeping the performance optimized throughout the whole range of operation for what was needed.

I agree, developing the technologies first gives us far more capability. In addition, if you truely want to return to the moon, ULA, the primary rocket manufacturer in the US, has put on the table a proposal to do just that, with the existing non-shuttle lifting technology, while simultaneously reducing the cost to LEO through mass production. You can read their proposal here:

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf

In the end, the real question is not the cut. The real question is, what will he replace this with? Will he push towards commercial space COMBINED with Direct (which COULD get by with less money)?

Another major question is whether or not it's truly necessary for NASA to spend tens of billions of dollars developing a new heavy-lift vehicle. For example, this proposal by the ULA uses commercial launchers and propellant depots instead of heavy-lift to create an exploration architecture suitable for NEO, Lunar, and ultimately Martian exploration, at a fraction of the cost:

http://ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf

Abstract:

A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture

Frank Zegler1, Bernard F. Kutter2, Jon Barr3

The present ESAS architecture for lunar exploration is dependent on a large launcher. It has
been assumed that either the ARES V or something similar, such as the proposed Jupiter
"Direct" lifters are mandatory for serious lunar exploration. These launch vehicles require
extensive development with costs ranging into the tens of billions of dollars and with first
flight likely most of a decade away. In the end they will mimic the Saturn V
programmatically: a single-purpose lifter with a single user who must bear all costs. This
programmatic structure has not been shown to be effective in the long term. It is
characterized by low demonstrated reliability, ballooning costs and a glacial pace of
improvements.

The use of smaller, commercial launchers coupled with orbital depots eliminates the need for a
large launch vehicle. Much is made of the need for more launches- this is perceived as a
detriment. However since 75% of all the mass lifted to low earth orbit is merely propellant
with no intrinsic value it represents the optimal cargo for low-cost, strictly commercial launch
operations. These commercial launch vehicles, lifting a simple payload to a repeatable
location, can be operated on regular, predictable schedules. Relieved of the burden of hauling
propellants, the mass of the Altair and Orion vehicles for a lunar mission is very small and can
also be easily carried on existing launch vehicles. This strategy leads to high infrastructure
utilization, economic production rates, high demonstrated reliability and the lowest possible
costs.

This architecture encourages the exploration of the moon to be conducted not in single,
disconnected missions, but in a continuous process which builds orbital and surface resources
year by year. The architecture and vehicles themselves are directly applicable to Near Earth
Object and Mars exploration and the establishment of a functioning depot at earth-moon L2
provides a gateway for future high-mass spacecraft venturing to the rest of the solar system.

You mean ULA, Arianespace and ILS.

So don't do that.

Using acceleration to counteract undesirable effects of microgravity appears to be a universally ignored solution. It's like people are so amazed by how awesome zero-g is that they can't accept that working against it might be the best option.

problem: humans lose bone mass in zero-g
brain dead solution: we need to change humans with drugs! oh, and we'll make them exercise more too.
problem: embryos don't develop normally in zero-g
brain dead solution: we need to study embryonic development more, and hey, maybe we can find some drugs to fix it!
problem: transferring cryogenic propellant in zero-g is hard
brain dead solution: we need to learn more about fluid dynamics in zero-g!

Back in the Gemini days they actually bothered to join a pair of spacecraft together and spin them up. The effect was about 1000th of a g, but it was a successful mission. Everyone presumed that NASA would continue this research after Apollo, with longer tethers and slower rotation, a 1g environment could be created. That didn't happen. Instead, the fixed module concept took over and "studying the effects of zero-g" became the mantra. No matter, the Japanese space program proposed a module that would allow the study of incremental gravity on mammals, everything from low gravity to three times earth gravity, or the astronauts could sleep in it. That was scrubbed.

Meanwhile, private industry is solving the problem of propellant transfer.

3 There have been a few sucessful commercial launches

No, there's a plenty of commercial satelittes launches every single year. ULA, EADS Astrium, Orbital to name a few.

I don't know where to get statistics for this but a commercial launch is something very common place.

considering that no other private space-flight company has ever achieved an orbit in space

That's not true: Orbital Sciences been doing this from a long time. SpaceX is the first creating all the stack, from the motors to the launch vehicle. United Launch Alliance also has Delta and Atlas too.

Spaceflight is not limited to governmental agencies since a long time.

There are alternatives [spacex.com].

Yeah, including some real alternatives, that can actually get into the orbits NASA needs to get to, rather then just barely out of the atmosphere (where you can tell a tourist that they are 'in space'. Like this or this.

The US Government has already funded the development of not one, but two rockets with the kinds of capabilities they need. They are flight proven, expandable to handle all sorts of loads, and available right now, not whenever Ares will slip out to. Add a little redundancy in a couple of systems, and have them ready to launch American astronauts into space in two years.

SpaceX is cool, and is probably the direction that the future of American space exploration needs to go. But it is not ready, it is not proven and it doesn't come close to the kinds of payload capacity or reliability that we need now. Check back around the time when Ares is supposed to be done to see what SpaceX is up to. In the mean time, quit screwing around developing a rocket similar, but slightly different from, the two perfectly good commercially available ones that are already up and running.

There are alternatives [spacex.com].

Yeah, including some real alternatives, that can actually get into the orbits NASA needs to get to, rather then just barely out of the atmosphere (where you can tell a tourist that they are 'in space'. Like this or this.

The US Government has already funded the development of not one, but two rockets with the kinds of capabilities they need. They are flight proven, expandable to handle all sorts of loads, and available right now, not whenever Ares will slip out to. Add a little redundancy in a couple of systems, and have them ready to launch American astronauts into space in two years.

SpaceX is cool, and is probably the direction that the future of American space exploration needs to go. But it is not ready, it is not proven and it doesn't come close to the kinds of payload capacity or reliability that we need now. Check back around the time when Ares is supposed to be done to see what SpaceX is up to. In the mean time, quit screwing around developing a rocket similar, but slightly different from, the two perfectly good commercially available ones that are already up and running.