Slashdot Mirror


Astronaut Group Endorses Commercial Spaceflight

FleaPlus writes "Buzz Aldrin and twelve other astronauts have published a joint endorsement of commercial human spaceflight, stating that 'while it's completely appropriate for NASA to continue developing systems and the new technologies necessary to take crews farther out into our solar system, [the astronauts] believe that the commercial sector is fully capable of safely handling the critical task of low-Earth-orbit human transportation.' They are confident that commercial systems (which NASA already relies on for launching multibillion-dollar science payloads) can provide a level of safety equal to the Russian Soyuz and higher than the Space Shuttle, while strengthening US economic competitiveness. They also support the expected endorsement of the White House's Augustine Commission regarding NASA's use of commercial spaceflight — the Commission's final report will be released today." And here's the Augustine report itself (PDF).

46 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. The Augustine report ? by Cochonou · · Score: 3, Informative

    Is the link to the Augustine report expected to be a joke ? It appears to be a link to Windows 7 from here.

    1. Re:The Augustine report ? by frankmu · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, slashdot has to pay the bills too, ya know.

      --
      Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
    2. Re:The Augustine report ? by The-Pheon · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Real link is here:
      Final Report

    3. Re:The Augustine report ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      that should teach you to (attempt to) read the article.

    4. Re:The Augustine report ? by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Paging Buzz Aldrin, article submitter needs an ass-kicking :)

      Hey, don't look at me! The report wasn't even released when I submitted, so the bizarre Windows 7 link was added by one of the editors. :)

      Here's my original submission.

  2. ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

    "the commercial sector is fully capable of safely handling the critical task of low-Earth-orbit human transportation"

    Well it's not rocket science, is it?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:ob by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, its rocket engineering.

      The first time its proving the science of the fundamental principals at incredible risk, and is a prime fit for government development. The second time its just trying to engineer it better and cheaper -- a better job for competitive enterprise.

  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. It's Been a Bad Week For NASA by ausoleil · · Score: 4, Informative

    This will not go over well in Huntsville. In fact, it already hasn't.

    "Republican Senator Richard Shelby launched a preemptive strike on President Barack Obama's blue ribbon space panel ther day before its due to release its final report, calling the committee's findings "worthless." Shelby, a staunch defender of NASA's Marshal Space Flight Center In Huntsville, Alabama, said in a Senate floor speech that the committee failed to consider safety when it ranked various rocket options for the White House to consider. "Without an honest and thorough examination of the safety and reliability aspects of the various designs and options for manned space flight, the findings of this report are worthless," said Shelby."

    Senator Shelby, obviously a noted rocket expert, contradicts former Shuttle astronauts Sally Ride and Leroy Chiao. Undoubtedly he astronaut safety at every step of the process with little regard to politics while they as former astronauts were completely unconcerned with it.

    Speaking of unconcerned, apparently President Obama is exactly that in regards to NASA. New NASA Administrator Charles Bolden hopes to meet with Obama before end of year on agency future.

    On top of all of that, it seems that Altair, the lunar lander from the Constellation project has been defunded.

    1. Re:It's Been a Bad Week For NASA by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

      The ARES I has serious safety issues. Thrust Oscillation will shake the astronauts like no other rocket in history. Also, they are launched with higher G forces. Simulations show there are certain points during the liftoff process where the launch abort system (which is supposed to pull the Orion crew module clear of the rocket in case of disaster) cannot pull the module clear of the expected debris field. In other words if ARES-I suffers an abort condition at the wrong time, the Orion will wind up parachuting through the expanding fireball of burning fuel, burning and/or melting away the parachutes. It won't be just loss of mission, it will be loss of crew. Add in the fact that ARES-I is designed to lift the Orion into an orbit with a NEGATIVE PERIGEE, unless the Orion itself circularizes its orbit. Also, they've been trimming Orion left, right, and center in order to get it light enough so "the Stick" can lift it. This means cutting crew, cutting land based landing, cutting crew comforts (eg toilets) and cutting safety gear. I shudder to think what needs to be cut in order to get a beefier launch abort system in place.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    2. Re:It's Been a Bad Week For NASA by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Add in the fact that ARES-I is designed to lift the Orion into an orbit with a NEGATIVE PERIGEE, unless the Orion itself circularizes its orbit. Also, they've been trimming Orion left, right, and center in order to get it light enough so "the Stick" can lift it. This means cutting crew, cutting land based landing, cutting crew comforts (eg toilets) and cutting safety gear.

      It's particularly ironic when you consider that in NASA's ESAS study which selected the internal Ares I design over commercial launch vehicles, the safety standards were tweaked so that the Ares I design was the only one which could satisfy the absurdly high standards. Of course, it now looks like Ares can't actually satisfy those standards, and the mass trim-backs may well result in a system considerably more dangerous than the commercial alternatives.

    3. Re:It's Been a Bad Week For NASA by ckaminski · · Score: 4, Informative

      RE: No Saturn abort modes

      What plan do you live on? Apollo absolutely had an on-launch abort capability.

      http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FApollo_abort_modes&ei=uNrgSpTHJtqutgea8bntDA&usg=AFQjCNHlUg79yJTq58OGwqbPC-AERMlXJA&sig2=xoBr6SYGsr9ZfaSgty98xQ

      Ever see that giant pointy think sticking off the top of the Apollo capsule? Yeah, rocket assisted abort. :-)

      http://a.abcnews.com/images/GMA/ld_sr_01_080421_ssv.jpg

      Atlas and Delta don't have the Pogoing problem Ares I does. Neither would Direct 2.0.

    4. Re:It's Been a Bad Week For NASA by FleaPlus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The ARES I has serious safety issues.

      None that wouldn't have turned up in any other new rocket design.

      Actually, the nastiest safety issues with the Ares I are a direct result of the design decision by former administrator Mike Griffin to use a single gigantic solid rocket motor as the first stage. It turns out there's a really good reason (or rather, many good reasons) that nobody's used such a design for a manned rocket before. I'm sure given enough time and money ($35 billion is the latest cost estimate) the excellent engineers at NASA can create workarounds for the inherent design problems, but I'd imagine their time and effort could be much better spent.

    5. Re:It's Been a Bad Week For NASA by khallow · · Score: 5, Informative

      None that wouldn't have turned up in any other new rocket design.

      There are three big safety issues that appear precisely because of the choice of an solid rocket motor (SRM) derived from the Shuttle solid rocket boosters (SRB). First, thrust oscillation is a problem with solid rocket motors because of their design. The SRM has a chamber prior to ejection through the nozzle. Certain vorticies resonate with this chamber and this vibration is then transmitted to the rest of the vehicle.

      Now you may ask, if all solid rocket motors have thrust oscillation and the SRM is Shuttle-derived, why isn't the Shuttle affected? The answer is that it would be except for the clever way in which the SRBs are attached to the rest of the Shuttle stack. Effectively, both SRBs are attached to each end of a giant bar. The external tank only connects to this bar at two points which as I understand it are null points of the thrust oscillation vibration (which is very predictable). So as a result, little of the vibration is actually transmitted to the rest of the Shuttle. This only works because we have a pair of boosters that are attached only in a couple of spots to the rest of the vehicle. It doesn't work for the Ares I because the second stage has to be mounted on top of the SRM. End result is a great deal of vibration (how much we'll see in a few days). There are various solutions for dampening the vibration, but these cost mass or thrust. Neither is a problem with liquid propellant rockets like the EELVs.

      Moving on, the second problem is the aspect of the Ares I. It has a wide second stage and a narrow first stage. This is precisely a consequence of the choice of the SRM as the first stage. The problem is that since SRMs have to go through a railroad tunnel when they're being shipped from Utah, they cannot be wider than they currently are. So the Ares I has an increased chance of bumping the launch tower at launch due to wind gusts. The limited width of the first stage also limits the performance of the vehicle leading to the third problem.

      The third problem is that the launch of the Ares I has been made safer at the expense of the rest of the mission. This doesn't have much consequence for LEO missions since there is some performance margin to use up. But lunar missions are very tight on mass. So the performance loss from thrust oscillation mitigation or other problems comes by taking weight away from the payload, here the Orion vehicle. Further, the first stage is already as large as it can be, so there's no additional performance to be gained from the first stage. That means in turn that compromise of the safety of the Orion vehicle, namely removal of some redundancy of the vehicle, has to occur in order for the Ares I to lift it. Since for lunar missions, most of the risk is in the mission not in the launch, this means that we're increasing the overall risk of the mission merely to continue to use the Ares I.

      The Launch Abort System didn't even exist on the Shuttle or Saturn rockets. It may not be 100% effective, but it doesn't need to be to at least provide a measure of additional safety.

      This reminds me that there is a fourth safety advantage of other rockets than solids. In case of full rupture and conflagration of the first stage, a liquid rocket burns slower than a solid. That means lower heat on the escape vehicle and a greater chance of survival for the crew.

      There are much better arguments against the Ares I. Like why it needs to be done at all when it has similar capabilities to the Delta IV, Falcon 9, or one of the number of shuttle-derived concepts out there.

      This is my primary objection to the Ares I as well. There are two near future commercial rockets, the "EELVs", Delta IV Heavy, which flies now, and Atlas V Heavy (which would be based on a modification of the Atlas V which flies now). So we're ignoring rockets which fly now in exchange for paper rockets which as we've seen don't work as advertised. NASA should never be in direct competition with private launch services. It gives them too much incentive to undermine the competition.

    6. Re:It's Been a Bad Week For NASA by camperdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only way to "buy down" those failures, he said, is though flight experience, which is why "real boosters" have lower reliabilities than estimated when they were "paper boosters" still in the design phase.

      This is one of the biggest arguments in favour of the DIRECT architecture. They are using existing shuttle hardware: existing motors, existing tanks, existing SRBs, etc. which bring with them 30+ years of flight data, and experienced ground crews, manufacturing crews, safety crews, and management crews.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:It's Been a Bad Week For NASA by demachina · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Great post. Just curious. Is there some actual physical reason you can think of preventing them from making SRM's in Florida so they could make them any size? I'm assuming the actual answer is Orrin Hatch, extremely powerful Senator from Utah, will kill any program where the SRM's aren't built in Utah and is probably supporting Ares precisely because it is keeping jobs in his state, even if its a horrible engineering choice. This country is doomed in science, engineering and tech if you make bad engineering decisions just to spread pork around. I've pretty much decided the U.S. Senate is an epic FAIL because one senator can often single handedly kill any program they oppose.

      --
      @de_machina
    8. Re:It's Been a Bad Week For NASA by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hmmm. I think that the 35 billion is for BOTH Ares I and V, NOT ares I.

      I've been double-checking, and it doesn't seem to be. In fact, it looks like the estimates are higher now. From a recent GAO report (although this does include the Orion cost as well):

      http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=15541
      http://gao.gov/products/GAO-09-844

      Nevertheless, NASA estimates that Ares I and Orion represent up to $49 billion of the over $97 billion estimated to be spent on the Constellation program through 2020. While the agency has already obligated more than $10 billion in contracts, at this point NASA does not know how much Ares I and Orion will ultimately cost, and will not know until technical and design challenges have been addressed.

    9. Re:It's Been a Bad Week For NASA by camperdave · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oversimplifying a bit... Suppose combustion-chamber pressure surges a bit for some reason. That increases back pressure against the fuel coming in, which slows fuel flow. That reduces chamber pressure, which lets the flow pick up again, etc. There are also less direct interactions, e.g. greater chamber pressure means greater thrust and higher acceleration, which boosts hydrostatic head of fuel coming down from the tanks and tends to increase flow. Lots of feedback loops that might oscillate.

      Now, if the natural frequency of one of those potential oscillations happens to match a resonant frequency of the vehicle or the fuel-feed system... you get oscillation, potentially violent (several Gs), at relatively low frequencies, typically a few Hz. That's Pogo.

      The way to cure Pogo is to add some damping to the cycle, typically by adding a surge absorber to the plumbing -- just a chamber with liquid in the bottom and gas in the top, connected to the plumbing, so surges in pressure push liquid in and out against the gas pressure rather than being communicated to the engine. Modern rockets typically have such Pogo suppressors built in from the start; for example, the SSME has a Pogo suppressor in its LOX feed (LH2 is too light and too compressible to be much of a problem -- it supplies its own damping), and has never had a Pogo problem.

      Interesting stuff there.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  5. Questionable Spin by swanzilla · · Score: 3, Informative
    FTA

    In polls, a huge percent of the American people support the space program. It costs each of us around 7 cents a day. I think most people would be willing to pay that, to have a human space flight program.

    Way off...bear with me here U.S. population appx 300,000,000 x Percentage of population who pay taxes 55
    gives us 165,000,000 taxpayers
    the NASA budget is $17,600,000,000 / yr, divided between those taxpayers yeilds roughly %106/yr, or roughly 30 cents /day.

    Did I miss something?

    1. Re:Questionable Spin by gblackwo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now compare it to the defense budget for fun.

    2. Re:Questionable Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What you expect to happen:

      Government: "Hey, guys, you know that whole space exploration thing we have? That thing that has in the past and could in the future do one hell of a lot of good for humanity and has advanced technology quite wildly before? Well, turns out it costs money. If we split it up, it's around an extra $110/year. How about it?"
      People: "Sure! That's a pretty paltry amount to pay. Would be nice to actually have advancements in our culture so that the rest of the world doesn't mock us quite as often as they do!"

      What Reality(tm) says will happen:

      Government: "Hey, guys, you know that whole space exploration thing we have? That thing-"
      Stupid people: "ZOMG moon == hoax and government == EVIL EVIL they take money and I GET NOTHINGZ why should I ever give you ANYTHING U DUM POLTICANS hate hate hat"
      Government: "But... but it's only around 30 cents/day... what-"
      Stupid people: "SEE TAHT they want to take mah moneiz and my jobs and I *degrades into incoherence and shotgun blasts*"

      Sorry, man, but stupid people are stubborn people. The dark ages were a good time for them.

    3. Re:Questionable Spin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guy I knew once said, "if you canceled NASA, the whole of their budget couldn't pay for the Mahogany desk polishing fund at the Pentagon and have enough left over to feed a homeless cat, let alone solve world hunger."

    4. Re:Questionable Spin by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.

  6. Re:Space debris concern... by confused+one · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They don't want their rockets to go *BOOM* any more than NASA does. Perhaps even less so, since they may be financially liable.

  7. Re:Perhaps Buzz cares for a different reason? by Z1NG · · Score: 4, Funny

    Man, Buzz Aldrin will punch you in the face.

  8. Summary of Augustine Report by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Informative

    For some reason the link for the Augustine Report seems to be going to a download for Windows 7 (Huh?!?), so here's the actual link (mirror).

    Here's the main report findings from the PDF:

    Summary of Principal Findings

    The Committee summarizes its principal findings below. Additional findings are included in the body of the report.

    The right mission and the right size: NASA's budget should match its mission and goals. Further, NASA should be given the ability to shape its organization and infrastructure accordingly, while maintaining facilities deemed to be of national importance.

    International partnerships: The U.S. can lead a bold new international effort in the human exploration of space. If international partners are actively engaged, including on the "critical path" to success, there could be substantial benefits to foreign relations and more overall resources could become available to the human spaceflight program.

    Short-term Space Shuttle planning: The remaining Shuttle manifest should be flown in a safe and prudent manner without undue schedule pressure. This manifest will likely extend operation into the second quarter of FY 2011. It is important to budget for this likelihood.

    The human-spaceflight gap: Under current conditions, the gap in U.S. ability to launch astronauts into space will stretch to at least seven years. The Committee did not identify any credible approach employing new capabilities that could shorten the gap to less than six years. The only way to significantly close the gap is to extend the life of the Shuttle Program.

    Extending the International Space Station: The return on investment to both the United States and our international partners would be significantly enhanced by an extension of the life of the ISS. A decision not to extend its operation would significantly impair U.S. ability to develop and lead future international spaceflight partnerships.

    Heavy lift: A heavy-lift launch capability to low-Earth orbit, combined with the ability to inject heavy payloads away from the Earth, is beneficial to exploration. It will also be useful to the national security space and scientific communities. The Committee reviewed: the Ares family of launchers; Shuttle-derived vehicles; and launchers derived from the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle family. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, trading capability, life-cycle costs, maturity, operational complexity and the "way of doing business" within the program and NASA.

    Commercial launch of crew to low-Earth orbit: Commercial services to deliver crew to low-Earth orbit are within reach. While this presents some risk, it could provide an earlier capability at lower initial and life-cycle costs than government could achieve. A new competition with adequate incentives to perform this service should be open to all U.S. aerospace companies. This would allow NASA to focus on more challenging roles, including human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit based on the continued development of the current or modified Orion spacecraft.

    Technology development for exploration and commercial space: Investment in a well-designed and adequately funded space technology program is critical to enable progress in exploration. Exploration strategies can proceed more readily and economically if the requisite technology has been developed in advance. This investment will also benefit robotic exploration, the U.S. commercial space industry, the academic community and other U.S. government users.

    Pathways to Mars: Mars is the ultimate destination for human exploration of the inner solar system; but it is not the best first destination. Visiting the "Moon First" and following the "Flexible Path" are both viable exploration strategies. The two are not necessarily mutual

    1. Re:Summary of Augustine Report by Larson2042 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Heavy lift: A heavy-lift launch capability to low-Earth orbit, combined with the ability to inject heavy payloads away from the Earth, is beneficial to exploration. It will also be useful to the national security space and scientific communities. The Committee reviewed: the Ares family of launchers; Shuttle-derived vehicles; and launchers derived from the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle family. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, trading capability, life-cycle costs, maturity, operational complexity and the "way of doing business" within the program and NASA.

      I still don't understand the seeming obsession with heavy lift. Why develop and fly a new huge expensive rocket, putting all your payload eggs in one basket, rather than use a greater number of smaller, cheaper, existing rockets? The more rockets you fly, the more you have to build, and you can begin to take advantage of economies of scale and reduce the dollars per kg cost to orbit. Another advantage is that if your rocket does encounter some calamity, you don't lose your entire (much more expensive than the rocket itself) payload, but rather just a piece of it. Yes, flying your moon/mars/where-ever spacecraft into orbit a piece at a time means that you have to assemble it once you are up there, but that just puts into use all this lovely experience gained building the ISS. So, more light to medium lift: give it a chance.

    2. Re:Summary of Augustine Report by Truth+is+life · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure, we've just got lots of experience with building the Station--and it was a nightmare. Remember, the station largely derives from Freedom studies started as early as 1982. Conceptually, it's almost 30 years old. Even a lot of the hardware is 20+. There were huge overruns, and several major delays due to the Shuttle failing. Doing that with a Mars craft is not an option.

      Economies of scale work both ways--sure, cheap, reliable, low-lift boosters are great, but there are important technical simplifications that you can make by launching everything in just one or two gos--not having to store cryogens in orbit, minimal assembly, more robust craft design--you can build your lunar lander or whatever in one big piece, and assemble it on Earth in carefully controlled, well-understood conditions, rather than in a dangerous, poorly-defined environment, for example--which might very well outweigh the benefits of low-ish launch costs. I'm also skeptical of any NASA effort to reduce launch costs directly. After all, the Shuttle was supposed to massively reduce launch costs, and look where that ended up. Now, they do support COTS, which may very well reduce launch costs some, but they aren't bending metal themselves.

    3. Re:Summary of Augustine Report by hardburn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you're going to put even one person into space for any extended duration (i.e., something more than Mercury-style joyrides around the planet), you need to take a long a lot of oxygen, food, water, and other necessities, while also providing a reasonable level of safety. Plus, you need to get cargo to the ISS somehow, and the ISS is on a rather inconveniently inclined orbit.

      Figure around 20 metric tons to LEO with a good sized crew. That's about what the shuttle does now, as does the Falcon 9 Heavy and Delta IV Heavy. Neither of the last two have flow with people on board (Falcon 9 hasn't flown yet at all, but should soon), which is why they have smaller variants.

      And if you want to do anything beyond LEO, you're going to need something much bigger than any of those. Ares V may have a place, but given the other launchers out there, I'm less certain about Ares I. You already have a pick of options for launch capabilities in that range.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    4. Re:Summary of Augustine Report by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if you want to do anything beyond LEO, you're going to need something much bigger than any of those.

      Not if you take advantage of propellant depots.

    5. Re:Summary of Augustine Report by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I still don't understand the seeming obsession with heavy lift. Why develop and fly a new huge expensive rocket, putting all your payload eggs in one basket, rather than use a greater number of smaller, cheaper, existing rockets?

      Simple engineering - the more chunks you split your payload into, the more complex the resulting assembly becomes (because now you need interfaces between the chunks), the heavier the resulting assembly becomes (because of the connectors between chunks and docking/berthing assemblies), and the greater the chance of fucking something up during building, testing, and on orbit assembly. Then there's simply math - if your rocket has a 98% chance of flight success (about average nowadays), then each launch you add to the manifest means the greater chance one will go awry.
       
      As far as expense goes, you're way off base - rocket costs scale very weakly with size, and very strongly with complexity and the number of man hours required to prep it for launch. (Which is why the Pegasus, despite it's small size and modest payload, is somewhat above the middle of the pack in $/kg to orbit.)
       
       

      The more rockets you fly, the more you have to build, and you can begin to take advantage of economies of scale and reduce the dollars per kg cost to orbit.

      That's the handwaving-and-smokescreen theory. The reality is that economies of scale in manufacturing don't begin to provide significant advantage until you're talking dozens of launches a year. Costs still really don't drop much until you tackle the problem of the standing army required to integrate, checkout, and launch the vehicle - multiple smaller launches can actually cost more in total than one big launch.
       
       

      Another advantage is that if your rocket does encounter some calamity, you don't lose your entire (much more expensive than the rocket itself) payload, but rather just a piece of it.

      That would be a point in favor of multiple smaller chunks - if space hardware could be bought off the shelf like the load of roof trusses I saw dumped all over the median in an accident the other day. But it can't, and won't be for the foreseeable future. This means that losing a portion of the payload is no different than losing the whole payload, either one is game over.

    6. Re:Summary of Augustine Report by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure, we've just got lots of experience with building the Station--and it was a nightmare.

      It's worth noting that a big part of the reason that the ISS was a nightmare is because building a station was only secondary to the goal of ensuring that funds went to the Russian space agency in order to prevent their rocket engineers from going to North Korea, Iran, etc. In addition, the ISS was also a big learning experience, and we've become substantially better at in-space assembly in the process.

    7. Re:Summary of Augustine Report by Larson2042 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, we've just got lots of experience with building the Station--and it was a nightmare. Remember, the station largely derives from Freedom studies started as early as 1982. Conceptually, it's almost 30 years old. Even a lot of the hardware is 20+. There were huge overruns, and several major delays due to the Shuttle failing. Doing that with a Mars craft is not an option.

      This is exactly my point. You say that the station derives from an old study, and that much of the hardware used is old. Well, any Mars craft could be a blank sheet design taking the lessons learned from ISS and putting them to good use. And as for delays due to the shuttle, you again make my point. If NASA designs another heavy lift vehicle, it will be the only way to get a Mars craft (or pieces thereof) into orbit. What happens if that launch system goes down to a failure? You have the exact same situation you had with the shuttle. However, if you design your Mars craft from the beginning to use existing medium lift, you'll have multiple options to get stuff into orbit (Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, Ariane, etc).

      Finally, while being able to put everything together as one big piece and launch it may simplify some aspects of the design, if we're going to really do worthwhile things in space (colonies, stations, mining) there will have to be piecemeal launches. Habitats and the like will simply need to be too big to be able to launch on a single rocket. Why not start getting really good at putting stuff together in orbit (or on the lunar surface) now? That way, when the expertise is really necessary, we'll have it. We won't have to stop and spend money to develop it.

    8. Re:Summary of Augustine Report by demachina · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Another advantage is that if your rocket does encounter some calamity, you don't lose your entire (much more expensive than the rocket itself) payload, but rather just a piece of it."

      If you lose one payload chances are whatever your mission was is shot anyway until you replace it, unless you are going to build a spare for every module and have spare launchers ready to go, which would seem to be a problem if they are "expensive". Maybe if its bulk stuff like fuel, water or oxygen it wouldn't be so much of a problem to lose one but for those the launch is the expensive thing.

      I'm pretty sure the Apollo people thought all this out and they came up with a pretty good solution that is known to work. I wager they figured it was best to launch everything at once where possible. As prone as launches are to being aborted for technical problems and weather in Florida if you had to do many launches it could take a long and unpredictable amount of time to get everything you need in to orbit. Just hope you don't need to hit a window, to go to Mars for example.

      I think it remains to be seen how much actual economy of scale you can get in launchers. So far they are more custom built by craftsmen than an assembly line where economy of scale would really pay off. Would be interesting if you could make a reliable assembly line that could turn them out like Model T's. Would also be interesting to know what launch rate and how much it would cost annually to make a real rocket assembly line with economy of scale.

      --
      @de_machina
    9. Re:Summary of Augustine Report by demachina · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I seriously don't know how you can say "overall direction looks really good". It looks to me a lot more like a bunch of dithering and continuing the status quo (a.k.a. NASA Jobs Program) until the next election and the next Presidential commission changes direction again and reboots it all again. At some point someone needs to do a Kennedy, pick a target worth doing, set a schedule, throw down a guantlet, DO IT, and stop changing course every few years to avoid ever doing ANYTHING except wasting billions of dollars.

      Flying astronauts to LaGrange points strikes me as bizarre. I could see you sending satellites to them but they are empty points in space. You spend billions of dollars to fly people to empty points in space, everyone on Earth will say WTF are you doing? Spending even more billions to fly people to Mars, not land and return is just as bad, and will get just as bad a reception. You either have a plan to go to Mars and land, and ideally stay there, or don't even bother.

      I could maybe see flying to an asteroid or comet but I'm inclined to think a very capable robotic rover like Spirit or Opportunity would be a LOT more bang for the buck until you figure out a mission you REALLY need people on one for.

      I seriously wish the U.S. was a rational country with a rational government but I don't think it has been for at least 40 years. You kind of have two options, decide you want to do manned space exploration and fund it properly or pull the plug on it and move on. Wasting money on it and never doing anything has to stop. The amount of money this report is quibbling over here is less than the U.S. blows in Iraq and Afghanistan in a month so you kind of figure the truth is everyone in Washington wants manned space exploration dead, but they don't have the balls to actually kill it. Assorted powerful Congressmen just want the jobs program in their state/district and don't care if it actually accomplishes anything.

      I was taken aback when I saw earlier this week that NASA has already spent $450 million on the upcoming Aries 1-X launch. This is basically to launch one pretty much off the shelf Shuttle SRB with a bunch of mockups stacked on top presumably made out of paper meche. And we wonder why they are having budget and schedule problems?

      P.S.

      Putting an ex Lockheed CEO in charge of this commission pretty much eliminated any chance of any original thinking before this commission even started. Lockheed IS the status quo and the jobs program.

      --
      @de_machina
    10. Re:Summary of Augustine Report by Truth+is+life · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the Russians always felt they didn't have enough money! If some of the horror stories I've heard are true, they really, really didn't, either. Besides, about half the period I covered was "Freedom" not ISS, and there politics was the thing (constant, constant, constant cost-cutting). I agree with you that building the station was a learning process, and to me it said, "Don't build things that you need on short notice (eg., interplanetary spaceships) in space out of a bunch of fiddly bits without a MUCH more mature infrastructure. Cost-cutters, launch delays, and accidents will eat your lunch."

    11. Re:Summary of Augustine Report by khallow · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you lose one payload chances are whatever your mission was is shot anyway until you replace it, unless you are going to build a spare for every module and have spare launchers ready to go, which would seem to be a problem if they are "expensive".

      What would you rather lose? An expensive module or a mission?

  9. Interesting how they rank Soyuz to the shuttle by waimate · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...commercial spaceflight sector can provide a level of safety equal to that offered by the venerable Russian Soyuz system, which has flown safely for the last 38 years, and exceeding that of the Space Shuttle.

    So the astronauts are saying that Soyuz is safer than the shuttle. Interesting.

    1. Re:Interesting how they rank Soyuz to the shuttle by sznupi · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not that the astronauts are saying it...the facts (your quote) simply support that notion.

      The two fatal accidents it had at the beginning were because of a) rushing it into service (first accident) b) disgarding common sense safety (crew not in pressure suits for reentry). Yes, it had a few rough, ballistic reentries, but it survived them. Heck, even reentering the atmosphere with the upper hatch acting as heatshield worked (upside down, basically, due to failure in detaching service module and changed aerodynamics of the spacecraft; try flying a Space Shuttle in "wrong" orientation to the airflow...oh wait, both Challenger and Columbia did it, and look how it ended (in both cases the immediate cause of orbiter disintegration were aerodynamic forces))

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    2. Re:Interesting how they rank Soyuz to the shuttle by kaiser423 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, that's because it is.....Why is that interesting? It's common knowledge, and has been for years. The Soyuz is a freakin' tank, and is about as simple of a system as you could design.

  10. Re:Space debris concern... by Narishma · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Look at the bright side. If space debris becomes such a big problem someone is bound to start a company to try making money cleaning it. A kind of space janitor if you will.

    --
    Mada mada dane.
  11. Mod Parent Up!!! by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh if only I had mod points. Larson hit the nail on the head with this one. Chemical rockets really do have a law of diminishing returns when it comes to cost vs. payload size. If we don't start moving to smaller, mass production type launch capability America's space program is going to stagnate more so than it already has (40 year moon anniversary anyone?).

    That being said, let's hope some of the decision makers make a point to read slashdot and comments like this one...

    Also, three cheers for the commercial space programs. SpaceX, I think you should lead the industry in a group hug =)

  12. Re:Space debris concern... by petermgreen · · Score: 3, Informative

    My understanding is that debris in LEO isn't so much of an issue because it's orbit will decay relatively quickly and it will then burn up on reentry. It is also much easier to track.

    If we get a major debris problem in GEO though then afaict that would be a huge problem.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  13. Re:Space debris concern... by eln · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A kind of space janitor if you will.

    This can only be a good thing. We're going to need all the space janitors we can get in case the Sariens attack.

  14. Re:Space debris concern... by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Look at the bright side. If space debris becomes such a big problem someone is bound to start a company to try making money cleaning it. A kind of space janitor if you will.

    And since space is basically a public area - that is, not owned by anyone - guess who's going to be paying that company? Monopoly rates with no requirements for results, of course.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  15. Re:Space debris concern... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Companies don't want their air and water polluted any more than anyone else. And yet they still pollute whenever they can get away with it. If someone can make a quick buck by externalising environmental costs (that's marketese for ignoring their responsibilities), they will. They will even pay for laws to better enable this externalisation.

    Remember that many big CEOs aren't looking further than a few quarters into the future. If they can make a huge killing (pun intended) and then get the hell out with their bonuses and stock options and golden parachutes and whatever the hell else before the shit hits the fan, they will. The financial crisis is evidence of that. How many of the people responsible for that mess paid the price for their greed and incompetence? And how many of them are still getting huge salaries and bonuses, and government bailouts, and stock options, and the pick of high-paid directorships, and cushy jobs in QANGOes? They can get away with it, so they will do it, and those few of them in possession of a functioning conscience will dream up some twisted, Rayndian justification that allows them to sleep soundly at night.
    How much do you think they care, or even acknowledge, that they fucked over millions of others, causing homelessness and poverty and misery and suicide?

    Do you really think some big-shot new CEO couldn't waltz into the top job at Launch-U-Like and cut out all the Kessler-syndrome-costs (ignoring the objections of their engineers) and enjoy massive profits for 18 months, and then fuck off to screw up some other company in an unrelated industry, while LEO turns into a giant pinball-multiball arena? They won't care about the spacecraft falling out of the sky because they will be able to afford gold-plated, diamond-encrusted concrete umbrellas to hide beneath.

    I'm all angry now. Sometimes I wish I was ignorant enough to not know or care about things I cannot change.