Comments on: The nomenclature “National Space Transportation System” will no longer be used

By: The NRC Report – A Missed Opportunity | Spudis Lunar Resources Blog

The NRC Report – A Missed Opportunity | Spudis Lunar Resources Blog — Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:42:47 +0000

[…] the original idea and purpose of the Shuttle program was eminently logical, we had abandoned the systematic and incremental approach to space exploration during Apollo because of pressing geopolitical needs. The post-Apollo […]

By: billgamesh

billgamesh — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 03:27:48 +0000

“The Space Transportation System would contain all the pieces of von Braun’s plan operated as an end-to-end system. When fully realized, this architecture (shuttle, station, orbital vehicle and interplanetary spacecraft) would maintain program continuity by routinely conducting a wide-variety of missions in LEO and beyond.”
The mistakes of the Shuttle program have been analyzed and debated endlessly. Understanding these errors will validate the billions spent; ignoring them will be a tragic waste not only of money but of the lives sacrificed. The three cardinal mistakes of the shuttle program begin with the think tank study that stipulated a ridiculously low figure per pound to orbit. Human Space Flight Beyond Earth and Lunar Orbit simply cannot be effected incrementally on the cheap. Thus the program was doomed to very limited success before it even started by deception and lies. The second mistake was not in making the spacecraft reusable but in where it went to be reused. Instead of a wet workshop concept that reused and converted the structures of empty upper stages as spaceship compartments, it was the absurd fact of wings in a vacuum and most of the payload wasted on landing gear and airframe. The Shuttle was reverse logic: built to bring most of the mass right back down from space instead of achieving the end goal of launching in the first place: escaping Earth’s gravity well with a large payload. The third mistake was in using a Heavy Lift Vehicle in the same class as the Saturn V only to go to the very destination Apollo was designed to leave far behind; the dead end of Low Earth Orbit. In hindsight it seems bizarre that these and several other fundamental errors in logic occurred. Going cheap resulted in a fragile vehicle without an abort system due to the impossibility of further reducing the already pathetic payload and this killed two crews. The algebra of reversing these choices is simple enough. Interplanetary travel cannot be achieved with the unshielded non-rotating chemically propelled spacecraft necessarily used to travel to the first lunar waypoint. Indeed what cannot be avoided is first establishing an infrastructure exploiting the resources on this waypoint by using these same limited spacecraft. The chemical rocket leaves Earth and travels to the Moon and the atomic spaceship leaves the Moon and travels to the planets. The challenge of escaping the massive gravity well of Earth was met but the challenge of escaping the lesser gravity well of the Moon with a massively shielded spaceship never followed. This progression was prevented by the allocation of resources to the nuclear deterrent and political expediency. These seemingly separate resources were actually intrinsically codependent as the nuclear material was necessary for either Mutually Assured Destruction or for interplanetary spaceship propulsion. Because the space race would never have occurred without the cold war this was not really an either or; the evolution of space travel would be started by and also be stopped by the interplay of these political and military forces. Despite the United States imitating the state run Soviet space effort to a large degree in the race to the Moon the end of the cold war also brought about an end to any discussion concerning this vast expenditure of public funds necessary to accomplish interplanetary travel. The nuclear warheads remained on Earth.
“By following this incremental architecture, a von Braunian space transportation system can be built that will enable dramatic and spectacular space accomplishments.”
As Mr. Brown found out early on in Germany, the first increment of any architecture is massive funding from the military. This was essentially the case with Apollo as it was a feature of the cold war more than a scientific endeavor. The space shuttle also greatly suffered from the military requirements built into the design as well as a lack of funding. What is needed to enable any dramatic and spectacular development is massive defense funding by way of revisiting that salient feature of the military establishment; the nuclear arsenal. By stationing the nuclear deterrent in deep space and also taking on the mission of asteroid and comet interdiction, the restoration of a real space program is assured. There is another line of reasoning and spurs driving this relocation of assets; the future prospects of a space solar energy industry that is truly the only hope of meeting 21st century demands by beaming energy down from space. The Beam is the Dream.

By: billgamesh

billgamesh — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 21:17:06 +0000

“-both cost and a lack of relevant technology made this goal a bridge too far (as it still is today). Despite the strong emotional pull of Mars,-“
Mars has become the “goal” because of a pervasive misconception common among space advocates; the insidious “it is just close enough.” The idea that since rockets took us to the Moon they can take us to Mars is the father of lies that has kept humankind trapped on Earth for these many decades. The relevant technology to explore the solar system was available even before the advent of the Heavy Lift Vehicle that took us to the Moon, but as Freeman Dyson explained was left unused due to political considerations. To travel Beyond Earth and Lunar Orbit requires a true spaceship; a craft capable of providing Earth radiation, gravity, air, water, and food for years at a time, along with enough room to allow for psychological health. Even meeting all these conditions there is still the requirement of a super powerful propulsion system that can accomplish deep space missions within the approximately half a decade a human crew could be expected to function. This half a decade and high speed would be required because the goal is not Mars, it is the moons of the four gas giants. The subsurface oceans of these dozens of moons are the true space frontier, not the too-deep gravity well of barren Mars.
As explained, the distance to Mars seems daunting but, by way of wishful thinking, doable on the cheap. Hoping to unravel this puzzle of accomplishing interplanetary travel without paying for it is the stumbling block. The recent realization that space radiation and zero gravity debilitation make even Mars too far for unshielded non-rotating spacecraft, leave only one fault. The primary obstacle is no longer technology or “a bridge too far” as Dr. Spudis mentioned, only the first factor he names remains; cost. There is no cheap. The treasury can only be drawn upon massively to answer requisite responsibilities. Because the first duty of government is defense, any viable space program will have to fulfill that duty and more; defend against threats from space. Trying to accomplish human space travel on the trivial pittance allotted NASA is a forlorn hope. It is probably impossible even with twice or three times the current seemingly inviolable ceiling. Incremental by definition means failure since even complete committal is an interminable project. The first unavoidable given is nuclear energy and since assembling, testing, and launching nuclear systems are only acceptable outside the Earth’s magnetosphere, the path first narrows to the Moon. The requirement for cosmic ray shielding narrows this destination further to the lunar ice deposits. The only worthwhile incremental step to a nuclear propelled spaceship is to station lunar-launched water-shielded rotating pseudo-spaceships in geo-stationary orbit to replace current satellite networks with human crewed cislunar versions. These platforms could also be used to de-orbit space debris with directed energy devices. A spaceship is always the best space station.
“Which transportation paradigm is most likely to develop a permanent and sustainable human presence in space (and all the technology and science that flows from it)?”
The troubleshooting flow chart branches to answer this question reduce the faults one at a time till a few key elements and the Moon are all that is left. These elements are the military, the nuclear industry, and the SLS. Only by relocating the nuclear deterrent on Earth into deep space can the vast resources required be justified and brought into play. There is no flexible path, no other option.

By: billgamesh

billgamesh — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 06:54:04 +0000

The key to any future human space exploration is transporting fissionable material to the Moon. This “Nuclear Moon” scenario is the only option for justifying the increase in spending by way of national security requirements.
The first half of the 20th century appears as one continuous struggle between competing nations. The contest became quite confusing in 1945 with the dropping of nuclear weapons and completely changed in 1952 with the detonation of the H-bomb. In 1954 the first air drop bomb was tested weighing about 12 tons and 60 years later the current typical U.S. W-88 missile warhead weighs less than 800 pounds complete as a cone-shaped re-entry vehicle. All things military revolve around these bombs. They are the ultimate arbiter in any conflict. The ICBM silos, the number of missiles, the submarines, the bombers, the early warning and communication satellites; the bomb is the apex weapon at the center of all these national security considerations.
Placing these weapons in deep space Beyond Earth or Lunar Orbit (BELO) on human crewed spaceships makes counter-force or preemptive strikes against opposing powers impossible. It is by far the safest form of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) possible. It also allows these weapons to be used for asteroid and comet interdiction and all global stocks of plutonium to be kept off world. The vulnerability of the several hundred tons of global plutonium to terrorist action is a growing concern. The total mass of these fissionable materials are well within the transport capability of HLVs.
The Moon is the only place to assemble spaceships using HLV empty stages as wet workshops and moon water as space radiation shielding. The Moon is also the only place to test and launch nuclear propelled as well as armed spaceships. The HLV lifting properly packaged materials and equipped with a powerful abort system is the only acceptable method to transport nuclear materials to the Moon. Empty upper HLV stages in lunar orbit can be connected and refurbished using the same techniques learned in the construction and maintenance of the ISS. The completed torus configuration can then be landed complete on top of the ice deposits to be processed into water shielding. Interplanetary travel is only possible using nuclear propulsion and the only practical propulsion system for pushing the massive shielding and artificial gravity systems required for long duration missions is nuclear pulse propulsion. Basing a manned nuclear deterrent in deep space necessarily requires such systems. The only sources for the level of funding required are those currently allocated to basing the nuclear deterrent on Earth. The military and nuclear industry is thus inevitably and inextricably involved in space exploration and exploiting space resources. There is no way around this.
In conclusion the three elements of my argument- the military, the nuclear industry, and the SLS- are the keys to any possible success. A Moon based human crewed interplanetary spaceship fleet is the best replacement for current nuclear force platforms. This narrow and inflexible path may be a joint NASA-military program or the creation of a new government agency using both NASA and military resources (a “Space Force”), but the key piece of hardware to start with is the SLS. This program needs to be accelerated with an appropriate increase in funding.

By: DougSpace

DougSpace — Wed, 09 Apr 2014 16:47:38 +0000

I think that the best way forward is a smart approach which will greatly reduce the cost of sustainably opening up the solar system to development, That includes truly reusable launchers (if they exist), the use of launchers that launch frequently (i.e. are commercially useful), fixed-cost, ISRU (especially the production of off-Earth propellant), and reusable in-space craft. Too often compromises have been made based upon the apparent lack of sufficient funds because the chosen transportation system was too expensive. Those compromises made going to the next step apparently impossible.

By: Marcel Williams

Marcel Williams — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 00:08:31 +0000

I think that there’s a general consensus in Congress that NASA’s ultimate goal should be to land humans on Mars– even though there is really no such program in place. Plus its still not clear whether Congress wants NASA to send humans to Mars as a stunt or to stay.

We currently have a human spaceflight related program that hovers around $8 billion a year. That’s $200 billion over the next 25 years. That’s plenty of money to establish a permanent human presence on the Moon and Mars, IMO, while also deploying a reusable fuel depot based space infrastructure that utilizes extraterrestrial resources.

Someone simply needs to ask Congress and the Executive branch is that what they want NASA to do– or do they just want NASA to spend $200 billion in tax payer money with really nothing to show for after 25 years– which appears to be the current policy!

Marcel F. Williams

By: mike shupp

mike shupp — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 22:56:39 +0000

Long term, I’d expect to see a mix of relatively small. reusable, ground-to-orbit and back, carriers like the Shuttle, with gigantic vehicles which never enter an atmosphere, a la Aldrin’s “cyclers.”

The point of the cyclers is that they last essentially for ever and use no fuel. (Okay, some fuel, since you’ll probably tinker with their orbits from flight to flight, but basically orbital mechanics does the work rather than pure rocketry.) The shuttles can be comparatively small because they don’t have to provide life support for an etended time, don’t need fuel to land and fly back from intermediate locations, etc. And probably you have several categories of shuttles, some rated for human use, some suited to carrying cargo and supplies to the cyclers as they pass by.

The paradigm for this would be present day commercial aviation. I have to go to the airport if I want to Paris, the 747 doesn’t stop at my doorstep. Basically we know how to handle such operations. The drawback is, this isn’t applicable to near term spaceflight.

Really long run, of course, we need Warp drives and transporters.

By: Paul Spudis

Paul Spudis — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:52:48 +0000

NASA has never set up a Program Management Office (or abolished it), so was unable to create the transport system

NASA can set up all the program offices it wants to, but that won’t give them the competence to create a new space transportation system. You suggest that it’s merely a bureaucratic construct that is missing; I suggest that the problem is much more fundamental than that — the complete lack of a strategic vision and the ability to carry it out.

By: A_M_Swallow

A_M_Swallow — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:32:50 +0000

What we don’t seem able to do is embrace the necessary programmatic structure that facilitates a sustainable and permanent human presence in space.

Because creating a Solar System Transport System is not a project but a programme. Beneath this programme are a portfolio of projects to build things like launch vehicles, spacestations, Moon bases and transfer vehicles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_Management

NASA has never set up a Program Management Office (or abolished it), so was unable to create the transport system.

By: gbaikie

gbaikie — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:17:16 +0000

“The question before us is: Which transportation paradigm is most likely to develop a permanent and sustainable human presence in space (and all the technology and science that flows from it)? ”

One could say that with the ISS program we have “a permanent and sustainable human presence in space”.
But one could say it’s not “permanent and sustainable” enough. But I don’t think we will get “enough” if it’s a NASA program, but we can get it, more “permanent and sustainable”.
An aspect of ISS not being sustainable is it’s yearly cost. Another aspect is ISS is like the Shuttle Program and it’s replacement need of orbiters. And the Shuttle was simply getting old.

And one could say that NASA should have viewed the Shuttle has an experimental vehicle but NASA regarded as operational- work horse. One could make same argument about ISS- it’s experimental. Or it’s not designed or intended to be permanent or sustainable indefinitely. One can make the argument that ISS is first attempt at “a permanent and sustainable human presence in space”.
I would like to see ISS be shifted towards a more permanent and sustainable human presence in space- in terms of experimentally. Or we have temporary experimentally, lets go making it more sustainable. And I think it’s bad PR to de-orbit an international space station.

So to make ISS more sustainable, I think important aspect is to lower it’s yearly cost. I have ideas about how to do this, but what’s important is not a way to do it, but rather general direction of lowering it’s yearly cost- and with removal of the option of crashing it into Earth.

Other than ISS, I believe NASA needs to experimentally use depots to re-fuel spacecraft. ISS, of course, would long fell out of the sky without it being refueled and/or re-boosted. One say we done some steps in this direction, but I think we get to point where all NASA spacecraft going into space are re-fueled in space. It needs to be done more experimentally and it needs to get to the point where is more operational and routine.

One could say that commercial lunar water mining depends upon being able to get enough demand for lunar water and rocket fuel made from it, and that exporting water and rocket fuel from the Moon is path to getting more demand for lunar water. And this requires depots and refueling in space [orbit].