Slashdot Mirror
NASA Rejoins Space Race With Manned Deep Space Craft
Laura K. Cowan writes "NASA is back in the future-tech space race with a new manned deep space craft called the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, which aims to take astronauts on longer missions to deep space, eventually to planets such as Mars where only unmanned crafts have previously traveled. The MPCV holds 4 astronauts, is currently capable of 3-week missions, and not only could take mankind to new frontiers but is billed as being '10 times safer... than the current space shuttle.' Maybe there is hope for space travel outside the X Prize."
How many "concept art" drawings have we seen from NASA regarding anything deep space?
Stop talking about it and start doing it.
Why do they insist on capsules? Why not take the advice of someone from FPA; build it at the space station and design it to refuel/load from there, eliminating the need to return to earth? We still have to get things up to the ISS, but that'll be left to the Russians and their superior rockets. We can take over 'space exploration' by just skipping that part. "Oh but what if they don't want to help us shuttle our crew/items up to the ISS one day?" No worries, Virgin and Japan/other countries are working on that! So we'll find one way or another to get to the ISS.
My abilities are only limited by my imagination
This is simply a rebranded Orion capsule. I worked on Constellation (from inside NASA) for years and helped the program get started. There is no rocket to launch the capsule. There is no mission for it. Nothing on the books, nothing remotely near ready for approval. Just how "deep" into space will it go with a mission time of 21 days? Hint: The Moon is not "deep space". Mars is deep space. Mars is at least 6 months away - one direction. Finally, how many times (altogether now) have we heard "advanced avionics"? That means they are up to Web 0.42 now, maybe. Bottom line: This is pure pork for Lockheed-Martin (Lockheed HQ is in Maryland; Dem. Senator Mikulski is on the Appropriation Committee). It is a multiple billion dollar gift. It will never fly. Ever. I'll bet a fair share of the related jobs go to Houston and to Huntsville, AL (Rep. Sen. Shelby, also on the Appropriations committee).
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
So you want to replace something that works with something shinier?
Apollo did it right, the space shuttle can now hopefully be forgotten. Let us all remember the people go on top of the fiery bits, not next to them.
No, Orion was going to be the most awesome thing humanity has ever produced. Then they cancelled it.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
This thing isn't even out of the design phase, so it's a bit... i dunno... presumptuous to state it's "currently" capable of anything.
On top of that, 21 days doesn't let you get very far from Earth into "deep space", unless LM is sitting on a revolutionary propulsion system for the capsule, which given the budgets and proposals involved doesn't seem likely. Moon missions are possible, which would be neat to get back into, but until NASA gets the budget of their dreams while DoD has to hold a fundraiser to pay for those new aircraft carriers (or a non-gubmint concern cooks up something awesome), I just can't get too excited over these press releases.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Next, some one should come up with a rocket that has at least the lift capacity of the old Saturn V. None of the proposed launch vehicles even come close.
Can someone in the know tell me what was wrong with Ares V (other than it was proposed by the previous Administration)? Ares 1 was a clusterfuck, but Ares V looked like a decent heavy lifter.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
No, it does not have a 1 in 50 chance of failure.
And for space flight, 1 in 500 is remarkable.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So here is the story: inside NASA, "Deep Space" used to mean (prior to 2003) anything beyond the orbit of the Moon. This was intended to be the domain of work for science and telecommunications ops of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), an FFRDC operated by Caltech as a NASA center. Inside the Moon's orbit was the domain of scientific work for NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). This included Earth observing science and telecom as well as astrophysics spacecraft. During the Constellation program, when simply returning to the Moon was not enough justification for the program and seeking a way to justify control of the design of deep space telecom for manned spaceflight, the Constellation Program Office at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) and NASA GSFC sought to redefine deep space as anything beyond HEO. This was also an attempt by GSFC to put JPL's Deep Space Interplanetary Network (aka "DSN) on the sideline of the design process for Constellation deep space telecom. (Furthermore, GSFC at the time was lobbying to get new Earth orbiting telecom spacecraft launched and needed additional justification, ergo "they are good for Constellation"). I don't think the issue was every resolved one way or another as far as "official" definitions go and in the end, not much changed before Constellation was cancelled. The lesson is this: Words like "deep space" can mean a lot when government research centers are fighting to protect their charters and business base. I'm glad I'm out of that biz!
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
It was OK, except it still ended up in the same obscenely expensive cost model for development that has plagued almost everything that involves continuing to work with the current batch of contractors -- Lockheed Martin and ATK (formerly Morton-Thiokol).
Another downside was the use of SSMEs -- an throwing them away every flight. Yes, there were proposals to replace them with modified RS-68 engines, but the redesign and NASA requirements for human-rating them (said requirements can be argued about, but that's another topic) would have raised the cost yet more.
Spaceships made of paper usually have pretty amazing performance.
Making stuff out of other materials is harder, which is why NASA and the US have stopped doing it.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Here's the problems as I see it with Ares V.
1) It was a bait and switch for the Ares I. The goal was supposedly the Ares V with 200 tons to LEO capability. But the development was staggered so that Ares I was worked on first (with first launch some point in 2012 or 2013). Then somewhere around 2016-2018, the first Ares V would lift. So Ares I development was funded instead of Ares V development at the start. And the Ares V had to survive numerous presidential administrations before it was first deployed.
1b) Because the Ares V was dependent on Ares I to complete first. Several years delay in Ares I meant a similar delay in Ares V.
2) It launched infrequently. NASA never talked about more than three launches a year of the Ares V. High fixed costs and low launch rate is a recipe for expensive launches.
3) There was never a serious consideration of commercial launch providers. For example, despite development delays, SpaceX may well come out with a 50 ton to LEO launch vehicle by beginning of 2013. That's within Ares I's original timeline. United Launch Alliance has two vehicle lines that could have been considered as well (and flying Ares I-class manned launches well before 2012, if NASA had paid the money).
Nor were alternatives to heavy lift considered such as propellant depots, orbital assembly, etc.
4) NASA never demonstrated a need for Ares V's capabilities. It was a another highly capable rocket, like as the Shuttle, without enough serious uses to justify itself.