Community > Forum > National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) > CEV and launcher indpendence

CEV and launcher indpendence

Posted by: FerrisValyn - Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:57 am
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 20 posts ] 
CEV and launcher indpendence 
Author Message
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:02 am
Posts: 142
Location: Michigan, USA
Post CEV and launcher indpendence   Posted on: Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:57 am
Topic moved from another thread

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
FerrisValyn wrote:
...but as far as I know, he hasn't, and I'd be willing to bet he won't.
We might be surprised. I was surprised when he first said that he wanted to hire out ISS missions, but he's really behind that effort, it seems. In any case, it doesn't actually say anywhere in ESAS that the CEV can only fly LV13.1; in fact, all of the GR&As and DRMs for each component are specifically not tied to anything other than estimated mass for the other components involved. So, while NASA has not said that CEV is launcher-independent, they have not said that it is launcher-dependent either.


Get him to say it, then. Get Nasa in general and Griffin in particular to commit to launcher independence if other launchers exists, and I promise to shut up. But wishing for something to happen doesn't make it so.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
FerrisValyn wrote:
Part of the Nasa Authorization Act of 88 was the Space Settlement act...specified a beginning role for Nasa (a report on the status of colonization every 2 years). So don't you dare claim its not there.
OK, it is true that S.2209 became Public Law No 100-685 on 17Nov88, and the LOC records that
the 100th congress wrote:
...that the extension of human life into extraterrestrial space for the purposes of advancing science, exploration, and development will enhance the general welfare on earth and will eventually lead to space settlements (human communities with substantial independence from earth) that will further accomplish scientific purposes.
Directs NASA to report biennially to the President and to the Congress on: (1) activities undertaken in connection with space settlements, including an analysis of research and development activities on the Space Station, the moon, and other outposts necessary to accomplish a manned mission to Mars; and (2) other specified topics relating to space settlements, including applied technologies, international cooperation, finance, and pertinent sociopolitical and legal concerns.
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D ... arch.html|)
...but that is a far cry from
FerrisValyn wrote:
If we are going into space, then we must be committed to everyone going into space.
...particularly for what is really just an appropriations bill. You see, Congress, it seems, is just as vague as the President, whose VSE (http://www.whitehouse.gov/space/goalsandobjectives.html) contains similar bureaucratic non-committal language.


No, its not. Colonization means anyone and everyone has a chance and going and living in space. Now, I will admit there is a price issue, but as a rule competative markets combined with advancing technology means cost to orbit will come down. But as long as you can affoard the ticket to space, and the land deed for where ever you plan to live, you can colonize space. Colonization means nothing if its not open to the general public.

As far as Congress and the President go, do you think I am giving them a pass over this? Actually, I probably am not as hard on this when it comes to the President and the Congress, mainly because I have so much else to bitch about when it comes to this president and this Congress (I am an unabashed Democrat), and there are only so many hours in a day.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
FerrisValyn wrote:
Everything associated with Nasa...implies that Nasa will be the one to bring colonization.
Hmm... how? Everything? Really? That sounds like a broad generalized opinion, which is clearly colored by personal prejudices... not exactly fodder for constructive discussion. Niether is the notion of launching payloads without rockets, or getting the "robot people to shut up" (paticularly the latter because if people are gonna go, the 'bots will still go first).


Let me work backwards on this set. No one in the space community denies robots have a place in it. Not me, not Griffin, and I bet if pressed, not even Rutan. What has been, and still is, in dispute is whether Nasa should be flying people into space. And THAT is the problem. My point about launching without a rocket is not practical. Going into space without robots or humans is not practical. Going into space without humans is practical. 45 years after the first mission, and we still have major op-ed pieces that claim that we should just be sending robots into space. The best and really only way to ensure that people have their place in space is through colonization. Anything and everything else can, longterm, theoretically be done by robots. Colonization is the one place where humans are indispencible and robots aren't. Until then, we will always be fighting a rear-guard action with reguards to manned spaceflight.

Finally, as far Nasa being the one to bring us colonization, to be fair, it isn't entirely Nasa who is doing this. But there is a pop-culture idea that if your talking about manned spaceflight, you are talking about Nasa. I will admit Nasa doesn't do it as much now, but most people remember Nasa from the moon landings, not surprizingly, and if you look at the literature coming out of Nasa then, yes, it was nasa who would create space colonization. I can rememebr one particular design that was for a space station of 100 people, that nasa said it would be building in the 1990s. As I said, nowadays, Nasa doesn't do it as much, but you still find it in some Nasa literature, and you definatly find it in all of the pop culture stuff (just look at Star Trek).


SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
While we're on the topic, although the op-ed from Mr. Foust was interesting, it was still op-ed, and he at least had the professionalism to say that there was no way of knowing that the opinions that he offered were accurate depictions of reality. Me, repeat after Ferris? Not on your life.

Not that I actually believe that China will beat NASA to the moon... I just don't think it's impossible. And I am sure that everyone would agree that such an event, while unlikely, would carry severe ramifications for NASA in Congress. It was an example scenario intended to demonstrate that there are real-world reasons that the ESAS is not a love letter to the endless list of entrepenuers whom still have not placed any payload into orbit.
-

I won't claim its impossible, but frankly, I think the chances of China going to the moon before 2020 are as likely as are the chances of us seeing a Space Elevator being built before 2020. Its so far outside the realm of likelyhood as to be of no consequence. And making CEV launcher indpendent does not mean it is some sort of love letter to alt-space. Using T/Spaces plan for the ESAS would've been a love letter to alt-space. But I am not talking about doing that. This is something that could take advanatage of anything that comes onto the market, whether from Nasa, established players, alt-space, or even international. Hell, this way we could theoretically sell CEVs to Europe to launch on their Ariane 5 (I tend to doubt this would happen, but with launcher independence, its possible)

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Patience. The time is coming. Don't have an aneurysm over ESAS, stop even worrying about NASA. You'll be able to buy your ticket into space soon enough, and the U.S. Government can help most effectively by not getting underfoot here on Earth. Let NASA do the exploring. And when our posterity goes to visit Mars, they will know that although NASA showed that it was possible for a human; it was the old-fashioned, greedy, single-minded, autocratic billionaires whom made it a reality for mankind.


The problem is that time is also limited. And so we don't have the luxery of patience.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post Re: CEV and launcher indpendence   Posted on: Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:56 pm
FerrisValyn wrote:
Get him to say it, then. Get Nasa in general and Griffin in particular to commit to launcher independence if other launchers exists, and I promise to shut up. But wishing for something to happen doesn't make it so.
Just saying it does not mean it will happen because talk is cheap. How many times have we heard NASA or others say that we were going to do something and it never happened? I would think any rocket with enough payload capacity could be used to launch the CEV as it is. What exactly would you change in the CEV program to make it launcher independent? The Mercury capsule was launched on three different rockets, Little Joe, Redstone and Atlas, with no modifications. The rockets were modified to carry Mercury, not the other way around.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:02 am
Posts: 142
Location: Michigan, USA
Post Re: CEV and launcher indpendence   Posted on: Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:19 pm
campbelp2002 wrote:
FerrisValyn wrote:
Get him to say it, then. Get Nasa in general and Griffin in particular to commit to launcher independence if other launchers exists, and I promise to shut up. But wishing for something to happen doesn't make it so.
Just saying it does not mean it will happen because talk is cheap. How many times have we heard NASA or others say that we were going to do something and it never happened? I would think any rocket with enough payload capacity could be used to launch the CEV as it is. What exactly would you change in the CEV program to make it launcher independent? The Mercury capsule was launched on three different rockets, Little Joe, Redstone and Atlas, with no modifications. The rockets were modified to carry Mercury, not the other way around.


Indeed, I know talk can be cheap. I'd use a firm commitment from Griffin (and frankly, I'd love to see some legislation along these lines) as a first step though.

As far as specific design features, I'll have to plead a certain amount of ignorance, but I know there are various issues with regaurds to any number of loads (ex vibrations), electrical interfaces, and software compatiablity issues. I've heard various people say the key thing is making the margins high enough, with regaurds to these things. In addition, I'd create a proceedure that provides for knowing what the requirements are for launching CEV (axial loads cannot exceed such and such amounts), as well as other things such that a rocket manufacture knows what he can/needs to modify to get a chance to launch the CEV. Finally, I'd put a proceedure in place to exam the various rockets that are actually competing to launch a set block of CEV missions, and choose the best one from the competing rockets.

I know I've not been very specific, but part of this stems from my lack of knowledge.

Perhaps the best way is to assume that we are looking to launch CEV on 3-5 existing/near term rockets, see what would need to be done such that we could launch CEV with relative ease on any of those launchers. Specifically, I'd choose the Atlas V HLV, Delta IV HLV, CLV, Falcon 9s9, and the Ariane V. (I think they'd have to use the HLV and 9s9 to launch CLV, given the weight. Or am I wrong, about that?)


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post Re: CEV and launcher indpendence   Posted on: Wed Apr 12, 2006 4:27 pm
FerrisValyn wrote:
As far as specific design features, I'll have to plead a certain amount of ignorance
Me too, but here is a pretty detailed document from NASA showing what had to be done to launch Mercury on a Redstone.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 028606.pdf
One thing was several hundred pounds of lead impregnated rubber added to the adapter section to dampen vibrations.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 1:25 am
Posts: 891
Post    Posted on: Wed Apr 12, 2006 8:13 pm
Changes
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Visio ... cture.html

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums ... 90&start=1

Why EELVs are a bad deal
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums ... 6&posts=23


CaLV talk
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums ... 1&posts=69


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 5:38 pm
Posts: 1361
Location: Austin, Texas
Post    Posted on: Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:04 pm
publiusr wrote:
Actually I don't see anything there specifically bad about EELVs. Only that the trajectory on which they choose to fly them being bad for crew escape. More efficient trajectory = worse crew escape survivability. An EELV could fly the shallower trajectory and an HLV could fly the more dangerous trajectory. The only problem is the safer trajectory cuts the mass to orbit.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:38 am
Ferris wrote:
...a proceedure (sic) that provides for knowing what the requirements are for launching CEV...
The ESAS Final contains this information for the EELV-derived solutions in section 6.5.4 beginning on page 414. I am sure that if Falcon IX were as much as assembled at the time, it would have borne inclusion in the study.... foreign solutions are not included due to legal policy constraints; that's obviously a non-engineering issue. Bottom line is, NASA has made a point of showing that CEV can fly on a variety of platforms. LV13.1 was selected for reasons that may change (and possibly are changing). One of the most compelling reasons given for not selecting EELV-derived LVs was the inability to meet the schedule, but clearly a vendor could make the needed changes at some time in the future -- of course, he'd then be entering a filled market unless the LV13-16 series had somehow failed in the intervening period... but if it was really cheaper NASA could be forced to swallow it.
Ferris wrote:
Colonization is the one place where humans are indispencible (sic) and robots aren't. Until then, we will always be fighting a rear-guard action with reguards (sic) to manned spaceflight.
If colonization is the only argument you can muster for manned spaceflight, then you'd better double your rear guard.

BTW, you are incorrect about Trek, have you not seen "First Contact?" It was a private investor whom opened space; NASA (and the whole government machine, it seems) was destroyed in a war.

Actually, NASA does have a role in opening space... VSE, ESAS, CEV... the "E"s all stand for the same thing: Exploration.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=explore "2. To search into or travel in for the purpose of discovery: exploring outer space."
...settling the frontier comes later; but it's coming.
Ferris wrote:
..time is also limited. And so we don't have the luxery (sic) of patience.
Patience is a Virtue, not a Luxury... and why is it that we have to be in such a blazing rush? I mean, if there was an ECA which could not be avoided within the next century, you might be able to get a couple thousand folks offworld in 30 years or so, but no natural social force is going to accomplish that feat.
Ferris wrote:
I think the chances of China going to the moon before 2020 are as likely as are the chances of us seeing a Space Elevator being built before 2020
You are in error by at least a half-dozen orders of magnitude; the Chinese have already demonstrated a proficiency with technology which is is historically known to have manned cislunar capacity. The Space Elevator has yet to manage the simplest proof-of-concept. There are no reasonable grounds for comparison, even in the most rudimentary of analyses.

You know, I was mostly joking when I said that Sigurd would complain about being OT, but I guess moving this thread is not a bad thing, either.

And I would actually agree with you that the occupation of ISS may well represent the historical starting point of a continuous human prescence off-earth. But I would also agree with Pete that it doesn't qualify as a colony. I think "outpost" would be most appropriate (that's also the term used by NASA in regards to the VSE Lunar mission: an outpost... not a base or colony.)


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:02 am
Posts: 142
Location: Michigan, USA
Post    Posted on: Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:50 pm
SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Ferris wrote:
...a proceedure (sic) that provides for knowing what the requirements are for launching CEV...
The ESAS Final contains this information for the EELV-derived solutions in section 6.5.4 beginning on page 414. I am sure that if Falcon IX were as much as assembled at the time, it would have borne inclusion in the study.... foreign solutions are not included due to legal policy constraints; that's obviously a non-engineering issue. Bottom line is, NASA has made a point of showing that CEV can fly on a variety of platforms. LV13.1 was selected for reasons that may change (and possibly are changing). One of the most compelling reasons given for not selecting EELV-derived LVs was the inability to meet the schedule, but clearly a vendor could make the needed changes at some time in the future -- of course, he'd then be entering a filled market unless the LV13-16 series had somehow failed in the intervening period... but if it was really cheaper NASA could be forced to swallow it.


And at that point, exactly how certain were we about using a methane based rocket for the Service Module? And how many other things will get changed in the process? Saying that we've made CEV launcher independent today is a bit like saying we've designed the shuttle in 1975 to be launched on a Saturn V. Claiming launcher independence now is impossible because it hasn't even been launched on its intended. You've got to put things in place now, and keep the requirement for launcher independence fixed.


SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Ferris wrote:
Colonization is the one place where humans are indispencible (sic) and robots aren't. Until then, we will always be fighting a rear-guard action with reguards (sic) to manned spaceflight.
If colonization is the only argument you can muster for manned spaceflight, then you'd better double your rear guard.


What other reason is there for manned space flight? Exploration? Every single thing we need to learn we could learn by sending robots.
Testing equement? For what purpose if not colonization? Again, exploration can all be done robotically. Manufacturing products? Again, you don't have to put people into the loop. Tourism? I'd argue that is directly part of colonization, (and in fact have).

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
BTW, you are incorrect about Trek, have you not seen "First Contact?" It was a private investor whom opened space; NASA (and the whole government machine, it seems) was destroyed in a war.


Ok, this is not a film speculation/review site, but until First Contact, I bet you most people somehow thought that within the star trek universe, humanity came together, solved all of its problems, and then went forward to colonize space. I know, that if you delved into it big time, the story was much different, but thats how people percieved it.

Be that as it may, the point is people think that we will colonize space when we have world peace. It the whole "Lets solve earth's problems first".

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Actually, NASA does have a role in opening space... VSE, ESAS, CEV... the "E"s all stand for the same thing: Exploration.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=explore "2. To search into or travel in for the purpose of discovery: exploring outer space."
...settling the frontier comes later; but it's coming.


And I go back - all of the exploration can be done with robots. Thats why you have op-ed pieces arguing for the cancel of the shuttle and CEV, on both sides of the political spectrum. Unless you intend to make the claim that we are serious about colonization, and that the exploration we are doing right now will have a direct impact on colonization, and can show how it will impact colonization, then you are wasting my tax dollars, and endangering human life.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Ferris wrote:
..time is also limited. And so we don't have the luxery (sic) of patience.
Patience is a Virtue, not a Luxury... and why is it that we have to be in such a blazing rush? I mean, if there was an ECA which could not be avoided within the next century, you might be able to get a couple thousand folks offworld in 30 years or so, but no natural social force is going to accomplish that feat.


Human beings don't need an ECA to screw the planet up, and frankly society up. We have the damage we are doing to the planet's ecology. We have the push towards greater extremism within political spheres - the spread of WMD, the using up of resources - all of these things push the planet and human society to the breaking point.


SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Ferris wrote:
I think the chances of China going to the moon before 2020 are as likely as are the chances of us seeing a Space Elevator being built before 2020
You are in error by at least a half-dozen orders of magnitude; the Chinese have already demonstrated a proficiency with technology which is is historically known to have manned cislunar capacity. The Space Elevator has yet to manage the simplest proof-of-concept. There are no reasonable grounds for comparison, even in the most rudimentary of analyses.


No, there very much is grounds for comparison. Has china demonstrated a vehicle with the capabilty to orbit the moon? Partly, but not totally. Have they demonstrated a lander? No. Have the demonstrated a Heavy-Lift vehicle? No (although its arguable whether they need one. In fact, I'd argue if they were really intent on going to the moon before 2020, they'd be focusing on a non-Heavy lift archetacture, but thats just my supposition). Have they demonstrated rendevious and docking manned crafts? No.

I won't say its impossible that the Chinease could land a person on the moon before 2020, because I will admit they have some impressive stuff. But I give them the chance of actually doing it prior 2020 the same chance as actually building an elevator. By 2030, those odds have changed IMHO, but not before 2020.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
You know, I was mostly joking when I said that Sigurd would complain about being OT, but I guess moving this thread is not a bad thing, either.


Wasn't certian if you were joking or not.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
And I would actually agree with you that the occupation of ISS may well represent the historical starting point of a continuous human prescence off-earth. But I would also agree with Pete that it doesn't qualify as a colony. I think "outpost" would be most appropriate (that's also the term used by NASA in regards to the VSE Lunar mission: an outpost... not a base or colony.)


Then how would you differentiate between continous human presence vs colonization?

Also, I think part of the issue is that we don't have a standard definition for colony, and , ISS isn't finished being built.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:26 am
FerrisValyn wrote:
And at that point, exactly how certain were we about using a methane based rocket for the Service Module? And how many other things will get changed in the process? Saying that we've made CEV launcher independent today is a bit like saying we've designed the shuttle in 1975 to be launched on a Saturn V. Claiming launcher independence now is impossible because it hasn't even been launched on its intended. You've got to put things in place now, and keep the requirement for launcher independence fixed.
I'm sorry, what? That makes almost no sense. I'm having increasing difficulty in finding linearity in your arguments. It sounds like you want some kind of statutory language built into ESAS in an attempt to guarantee that we'll be able to loft it on any old bird; because as you have pointed out, it cannot be made certain from an engineering standpoint. That's just naive, man, it's like trying to change the laws of physics by legislation.

Look, Final Design Review is still a year away. When it happens, it will say that CEV has some specified mass and the NASA regs for human rating will still be available for any vendor to see. Anyone who wants to can try to get thier business, but whether they are successful or not has NOTHING to do with the design of the CEV or with ESAS. It will be about the government machine which makes those contracts, so don't bash the eggheads over it, they're doing a really good job under the circumstances.

Ferris wrote:
Every single thing we need to learn we could learn by sending robots... exploration can all be done robotically.
But a human is more than a thousand times more flexible. If you want your data fast and rich, you are way better off sending humans. And even if what you want to do is 'colonize,' it's still cheaper to do your exploratory missions with 'bots... why send humans if they're not gonna stay permanently; that's a waste of colonization resources.

Ferris wrote:
...I bet you most people somehow thought that within the star trek universe, ...thats how people percieved it.
I see no point in pursuing a debate centered on what you perceive about what others may or may not think and whether or how that influences your opinion.

Ferris wrote:
Human beings don't need an ECA to screw the planet up, and frankly society up. We have the damage we are doing to the planet's ecology. We have the push towards greater extremism within political spheres - the spread of WMD, the using up of resources - all of these things push the planet and human society to the breaking point.
...and every single one of those problems will follow us to the stars, unless you somehow restrict access to space; but you are on record as saying that colonization means everybody gets to go.

So, I ask again, "why the urgency?"

Ferris wrote:
...I give them the chance of actually doing it prior 2020 the same chance as actually building an elevator.
Yeah, we know your opinion. I am saying that it is based on a fatally flawed numerical analysis, that it is roughly a million times more likely that China attempts a manned lunar mission than a space elevator project is completed within the next 14 years. One kind of technology is extant. The other isn't even theoretical, it's hypothetical. The real-life difference is immense.

Ferris wrote:
Then how would you differentiate between continous human presence vs colonization?
My opinion is a matter of record in your Colonization poll thread. Basically, I feel that a colony means humans living in extraterrestrial space. Extraterrestrial meaning LEO doesn't count, and "living" being the biological definition thereof, meaning reproduction is implicit. Not just possible, but actually happening. The colony need not sustain itself economically or infrastructurally; but as a population it must support itself biologically.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:36 am
Hello, SawSS1June21,

in the colonization thread it has been said that the ISS could be enhanced making it larger. There will be certain critical size of that station made of the ISS when people can live in it by a number and for a time that biological self-support occurs.

I am not sure if I was the one who mentioned the possibility of enhancing the ISS - I rember that FerrisValyn has been speaking about it also.

The possibility that the ISS might be enhanced by people who want to make it a colony includes also to move it to a higher orbit - may be to GEO.

...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
avatar
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:16 pm
Posts: 51
Location: Albuquerque
Post GEOISS   Posted on: Tue Apr 18, 2006 3:12 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:

The possibility that the ISS might be enhanced by people who want to make it a colony includes also to move it to a higher orbit - may be to GEO.


That would certainly be interesting to see happen. You'd be trading a relatively low radiation/high debris environment for more radiation/charged particle/low debris environment.

Of course this would require some new international agreements to maintain physical separation from a GEO-ISS. Current regulations only require frequency separation not physical separation.

Probably best not to put it into a gravity well, since debris accumaltes there. Station-keeping fuel would be an issue; Perhaps XIPS drives?Perhaps a subsynchronous or supersynchronous orbit so that it can be visible over the globe at some point.

Still, having no manned presence in LEO makes launching other stuff easier. The ISS and Shuttle are the single biggest drivers of launch windows for all launches.

- Alistair

_________________
Mach 25 Begins With Safety


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:02 am
Posts: 142
Location: Michigan, USA
Post    Posted on: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:53 pm
SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
FerrisValyn wrote:
And at that point, exactly how certain were we about using a methane based rocket for the Service Module? And how many other things will get changed in the process? Saying that we've made CEV launcher independent today is a bit like saying we've designed the shuttle in 1975 to be launched on a Saturn V. Claiming launcher independence now is impossible because it hasn't even been launched on its intended. You've got to put things in place now, and keep the requirement for launcher independence fixed.
I'm sorry, what? That makes almost no sense. I'm having increasing difficulty in finding linearity in your arguments. It sounds like you want some kind of statutory language built into ESAS in an attempt to guarantee that we'll be able to loft it on any old bird; because as you have pointed out, it cannot be made certain from an engineering standpoint. That's just naive, man, it's like trying to change the laws of physics by legislation.

Look, Final Design Review is still a year away. When it happens, it will say that CEV has some specified mass and the NASA regs for human rating will still be available for any vendor to see. Anyone who wants to can try to get thier business, but whether they are successful or not has NOTHING to do with the design of the CEV or with ESAS. It will be about the government machine which makes those contracts, so don't bash the eggheads over it, they're doing a really good job under the circumstances.


Im not bashing the eggheads (well, not totally, and frankly, not much). What I am saying is that is that if we believe that launcher independence is a good thing to have (which I do), then you need 2 things. 1 - you need the design margins wide enough to allow for working with a variety of vehicles (something which Nasa I admit might be doing, although given past history, I'd prefer something more definative, preferably something with a legislative backing), and you need a process by which launchers can be selected from criteria (something we are NOT doing). Simply saying

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
One of the most compelling reasons given for not selecting EELV-derived LVs was the inability to meet the schedule, but clearly a vendor could make the needed changes at some time in the future -- of course, he'd then be entering a filled market unless the LV13-16 series had somehow failed in the intervening period... but if it was really cheaper NASA could be forced to swallow it.


does not give you a specified process a launch provider needs to determine whether he can pursue this market. You need a method by which you can apply for launches. Claiming a vehicle as man-rated is kind of pointless if you can't use it to launch US manned vehicles.

This is as much an issue of dealing with the policy heads as it is with the egg heads. But you have to deal with both, at the same time.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Ferris wrote:
Every single thing we need to learn we could learn by sending robots... exploration can all be done robotically.
But a human is more than a thousand times more flexible. If you want your data fast and rich, you are way better off sending humans. And even if what you want to do is 'colonize,' it's still cheaper to do your exploratory missions with 'bots... why send humans if they're not gonna stay permanently; that's a waste of colonization resources.


The first is somewhat disputable - we've got examples of reprograming crafts both when they are on site, or en-route. And if an astronaut needs a drill, but doesn't have one, then he'd be in the same position as a robot without a drill. Why do you think so many science agency are bitching about the loss of funding for variuos robotic missions, and bemoaning the increase in funding for manned spaceflight?

And as for sending robots when colonizing - I won't dispute that it is more economical to send robots, but you don't NEED to send robots.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Ferris wrote:
...I bet you most people somehow thought that within the star trek universe, ...thats how people percieved it.
I see no point in pursuing a debate centered on what you perceive about what others may or may not think and whether or how that influences your opinion.


Well, then, don't go into politics. Ever. And don't be surprized when you have no control over your level of funding.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Ferris wrote:
Human beings don't need an ECA to screw the planet up, and frankly society up. We have the damage we are doing to the planet's ecology. We have the push towards greater extremism within political spheres - the spread of WMD, the using up of resources - all of these things push the planet and human society to the breaking point.
...and every single one of those problems will follow us to the stars, unless you somehow restrict access to space; but you are on record as saying that colonization means everybody gets to go.

So, I ask again, "why the urgency?"


No, they won't. First, the stress towards extremism comes about because of limited resources is eliminated because the pool of resources availiable to us is suddenly much larger (yes, it isn't infinate, but people will again be able to treat it as infinite). Second, the dependence on the survival of the Earth becomes less and less as time goes by.

Having space colonization will act as a pressure release valve, espically when it comes to resource issues.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Ferris wrote:
...I give them the chance of actually doing it prior 2020 the same chance as actually building an elevator.
Yeah, we know your opinion. I am saying that it is based on a fatally flawed numerical analysis, that it is roughly a million times more likely that China attempts a manned lunar mission than a space elevator project is completed within the next 14 years. One kind of technology is extant. The other isn't even theoretical, it's hypothetical. The real-life difference is immense.


It may be a million times more likely, but IMHO, the odds of the Chinease are already rather small. So, lets assume that you buy 2 lottery tickets, one that has an odds of winning are one in a million, and the other has odds of winning set at 1 in 1,000,000,000,000. Is your first ticket better odds? Yes. Are the odds good enough such that you can quit your job? I sure as hell wouldn't.

Now, I am not saying the Chinease odds are a million to 1 - but the likelyhood of them actually launch a manned luner landing mission before 2020 is very very small. Small enough that we shouldn't be losing sleep over it.

SawSS1Jun21 wrote:
Ferris wrote:
Then how would you differentiate between continous human presence vs colonization?
My opinion is a matter of record in your Colonization poll thread. Basically, I feel that a colony means humans living in extraterrestrial space. Extraterrestrial meaning LEO doesn't count, and "living" being the biological definition thereof, meaning reproduction is implicit. Not just possible, but actually happening. The colony need not sustain itself economically or infrastructurally; but as a population it must support itself biologically.


My apologizes - I forgot your post there - that thread got quite indepth, and you only posted that one time, which wasn't particularlly large.

Of course, the irony is that it will probably be able to support itself economically long before it can support itself biologically. Which brings me to another point that most countries are biologically self-supporting - many espicially aren't biologically self-supported in terms of food and the like, and there are some that have populations declining.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
User avatar
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 6:15 pm
Posts: 1233
Location: London, England
Post    Posted on: Tue Apr 18, 2006 9:38 pm
FerrisValyn wrote:
if an astronaut needs a drill, but doesn't have one, then he'd be in the same position as a robot without a drill.


Not quite, he has the capability to make one from whatever he has to hand a robot does not. In any given situation a human can problem solve and adapt whatever he has to his needs, probably in a relatively short period of time. The same process would not be available to todays robots or even those in the next couple of decades probably. Thats one of the things that make it necessary for humans to go themselves rather than rely on animated toasters crawling around at a couple of metres a day.

_________________
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.


Back to top
Profile WWW
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 243
Location: So Cal, baby!
Post    Posted on: Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:24 am
FerrisValyn wrote:
...you need the design margins wide enough to allow for working with a variety of vehicles (something which Nasa I admit might be doing, although given past history, I'd prefer something more definative, preferably something with a legislative backing), and you need a process by which launchers can be selected from criteria (something we are NOT doing).
The document (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf), link to which is found on the NASA exploration homepage, actually contains the Executive Instructions to the Administrator from the White House. It says,
Quote:
The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will be responsible for the plans, programs, and activities required to implement this vision, (...) Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other services supporting the International Space Station and exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit.
If Executive Order is insufficient and you still feel the need for legislation, feel free to write your congressperson, but it would be a duplication of instruction and totally superfluous.

Ferris wrote:
we've got examples of reprograming crafts both when they are on site, or en-route.
...and how long does that take? One of the MERs sat for a MONTH while they sorted out an issue of that variety. And the MERs, while they are remarkable technology, move the equivalent of four or five human steps on a good day. The work that those two 'bots have done in the last year will be surpassed in the first few days of a human mission.
Ferris wrote:
And as for sending robots when colonizing - I won't dispute that it is more economical to send robots, but you don't NEED to send robots.
...I thought you had some concern about jeapordizing human life unnecessarily? Do you ever hold a position for longer than it takes to click the "submit" button?

Ferris wrote:
Well, then, don't go into politics.
Why in the name of Tsiolkovsky, Goddard, and Von Braun would I want to? Talk about a complete waste of anything and everything. I presume from your previous remarks and from that statement that it is something you aspire to; certainly that would account for the mercurial nature of your positions, and your propensity for debate in the abscence of forensic data. I assure you, I have no desire to get anywhere near that line of distraction.

Ferris wrote:
...the stress towards extremism comes about because of limited resources is eliminated because the pool of resources availiable to us is suddenly much larger (...) Having space colonization will act as a pressure release valve, espically when it comes to resource issues.
Well, first of all, I am in Pete's camp when it comes to the resource angle, but let's assume that there is, oh a duplicate Earth at the solar opposite point; only there's no life there and only an unimaginable wealth of resources... by what theory of sociology and/or economics do you postulate that suddenly everyone will say, "whew, now I don't have to worry about whatever persons or ideals or culture I can't stand?"

BTW, even if the ridiculous notion of unlimited resources just beyond LEO was a reality, it would still be cheaper to apply technologies to develop extant resources already present on the surface of Earth.

Ferris wrote:
Now, I am not saying the Chinease odds are a million to 1 - but the likelyhood of them actually launch a manned luner landing mission before 2020 is very very small. Small enough that we shouldn't be losing sleep over it.
I agree that the chances of China mounting a manned lunar landing mission prior to 2020 are vanishing small, but you yourself have said that giving them another 10 years could substantially alter those odds... and my original point was that delaying our own project had a measurable chance of allowing the Chinese to arrive at the moon first. So while your buddies in the beltway are debating the language of the "alternative launcher specification amendment initiative" sometime in 2008, our engineers will be twiddling thier thumbs while the Chinese engineers are working on real problems.

Ferris wrote:
Of course, the irony is that it will probably be able to support itself economically long before it can support itself biologically. Which brings me to another point that most countries are biologically self-supporting - many espicially aren't biologically self-supported in terms of food and the like, and there are some that have populations declining.
Well, again, I am confident that genuine economic self-sufficiency is a spectacular long way off for extraterrestrial human population centers; but the argument was made (successfully, in my view) in the colonization poll thread that European powers needed to sustain the colonial operations in the Americas, which voided Pete's argument that a colony must sustain itself from a raw materials standpoint. But the colonies in the Americas which failed did so because they ran out of people, so that's why I offered the opinion that colonization starts with extraterrestrial childbirth.


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:31 am
At present it's sounding a little bit as if parts of the arguments are based on assumptions that might wrong as well as right. These assumptions partially are implicit.

The question of ressources for example - throughout out the solar system there are that lots of raw materials that they enable severals of colonies like FerrisValyn has them in mind. There are sufficient ressource but the question is access to them. This access is discussed in several threads - at least one of the in the Technology section. Another question are the mining tols etc.

As long as not all of the questions - and there are much more than those listed here and their number grows by the details considered - are answered the ressources are no good arguments against colonies, ISS = colony and the like.

This holds for other assumptions also. The better perspective on the topic would be the question "How And which way?" instead of the question IF it can be done or if it is possible. ...



Dipl.-VBolkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use