Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 14 to 26 of 34
  1. #14
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    2,332
    The Case for Commercial Rockets

    This is a terrific interview with Gwynne Shotwell, the president of SpaceX.

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...d=1457_9791972
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  2. #15
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    2,332
    NASA: Let's fly by the Moon on SLS; no, let's orbit the Moon a few times; no, let's capture an asteroid; no, let's fly past the Moon and do a practice run for asteroid retrieval "to demonstrate trajectory performance and increased flight duration for future Asteroid Redirect Crewed Mission (ARCM) as well as high speed entry and select integrated systems performance prior to crewed flight," so that the next time we fly the SLS, which might be like four years later, we might be able to actually land on an asteroid...

    Sounds like a wiener.

    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/...orion-mission/
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  3. #16
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    2,332
    Costs Compared

    Rocket Development Cost (in USD)
    for a Heavy Lift Vehicle (HLV)
    carrying specified payload (in metric tons)
    to Low Earth Orbit (LEO)

    HLV ................$ Billion............. Payload
    Shuttle........... 142 or 74 ............. 20
    SLS ................... 30 .................100
    ULA ................... 5.5 ................140
    SpaceX .............. 2.5 ................150

    Total Cost of the shuttle program was $209 billion.
    NASA claimed a per launch cost of $450M, so I
    rounded it off to 500M and chalked up the rest
    (142B) to development. Recent estimates by others
    suggest a more realistic per launch cost of $1B,
    which would put shuttle development cost at $74B.


    Cost per Launch

    HLV ........................ $ Million
    Shuttle .................. 500 or 1000
    SLS .................... 4,000 to 10,000
    ULA ......................... 3,000*
    SpaceX ..................... 330*


    SpaceX cost per launch was estimated at $1000 per pound.
    ULA cost per launch is purely a guess on my part.
    ULA 2011 cost per launch has been estimated by others at $380M.
    Delta 4 has been estimated by others at $435M for 25T payload.
    Delta 4 launch cost per pound has been estimated at 10x SpaceX.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=Z5j9JmPI8SY
    Go to 15:00

    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2330/1
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy
    http://exoscientist.********.com/201...-cost-hlv.html
    http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html
    http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exp...Employees.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_s...program#Budget
    http://www.space.com/12166-space-shu...9-billion.html
    Last edited by Space Racer; 07-17-2013 at 02:41 PM.
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  4. #17
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    2,332
    In 2011, NASA did a study that compared different methods for accomplishing missions that would take humans beyond Low Earth Orbit. The results were kept "buried deep inside of NASA."

    The study compared and contrasted an SLS/SEP architecture with one based on propellant depots for human lunar and asteroid missions. Not only was the fuel depot mission architecture shown to be less expensive, fitting within expected budgets, it also gets humans beyond low Earth orbit a decade before the SLS architecture could.

    Moreover, supposed constraints on the availability of commercial launch alternatives often mentioned by SLS proponents, was debunked. In addition, clear integration and performance advantages to the use of commercial launchers Vs SLS was repeatedly touted as being desirable: "breaking costs into smaller, less-monolithic amounts allows great flexibility in meeting smaller and changing budget profiles."

    In a time when space sector jobs are an issue this alternative architecture to the use of the SLS would create real jobs and get humans beyond low Earth orbit years sooner than what the Senate demands be done via the pork filled route.
    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1577

    Eliminating SLS would help energize our space exploration program. It would create more jobs, it would reduce costs, it would improve the economy, and it would allow us to jump years ahead in space exploration progress.

    Nevertheless, Congress continues to force SLS down NASA's throat.
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  5. #18
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    2,332
    Well, that youtube video I sourced in post #16 ("Costs Compared") has been removed. In the video, RD Boozer, the author of the book The Plundering of NASA: An Expose talked about the two proposals from USA and SpaceX for a super HLV. He said SpaceX offered a 150-metric-ton-payload HLV for $2.5 billion and ULA offered a 140-metric-ton-payload HLV for $5.5 billion.

    I found a few other sources, but the info is less obvious in them.

    http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/p...hase2_2010.pdf
    http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html
    http://www.scoop.it/t/the-commercial...cast-live-6-18
    http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/12...king-stuffers/
    http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/06...rization-bill/
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  6. #19
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    2,332
    Excerpts from http://www.citizensinspace.org/2013/...ant/#more-7776

    The Space Launch System: Building the Elephant

    Contrary to popular belief, ... expendable launch systems are not cheaper to develop than reusable vehicles. In the 1960′s, General Dynamics did a study comparing the development of the suborbital X-15 with an expendable missile (Atlas A) of similar size and performance. General Dynamics found that the X-15, although more complex and of higher reliability, was about 30% cheaper to develop. A US Air Force study conducted around the same time, using different methods, came to a similar conclusion.
    ...
    This has happened in aviation, also. The Hughes H-4 Hercules, better known as the “Spruce Goose”, was similarly oversized. Even if it hadn’t run into technical problems, the Spruce Goose would have been an economic disaster. The much smaller DC-3 was a better fit for the military and commercial markets at the time. Hughes apparently realized that, late in the development program, and so the aircraft never flew more than a single test flight.

    A reusable launch vehicle will be economically viable, if and only if it is reused, frequently. Achieving such a high flight rate requires that the vehicle be sized appropriately for the market, as the DC-3 was in the 1930′s and 40′s, not oversized like the Shuttle or Spruce Goose. It must be sized for the payloads that can be commonly expected, not the largest payload imaginable.
    ...
    NASA is historically prone to the mistake of trying to build the biggest rocket possible, rather than a rocket that makes economic sense, because it is isolated from the financial disciple of the market. NASA depends for funding on politicians, a profession that is not generally known for its good financial sense. So, projects such as SLS are justified on the basis of how many jobs they create (i.e., how much money NASA manages to spend) in key Congressional districts, rather than the missions they can perform.

    The only way out of this trap is to leave development of new space transportation systems to the private sector (just as we leave the development of air, sea, and land transport to the private sector).
    ...
    Space-transportation visionary G. Harry Stine, quoting Robert Heinlein, said that an elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.
    ...
    To bring launch costs down, we need market-based competition, not a government-sanctioned monopoly, and commercial vehicles that are designed to commercial specifications, not government specifications.

    In the 1990′s, Congress passed the Launch Services Purchase Act, which required NASA to purchase future space-transportation services from the private sector, rather than developing its own launch systems. This law was later weakened, then ignored entirely.
    ...
    In fact, even earlier language, dating back to the Reagan Administration, remains on the books. 51 USC Sec. 50133, “Shuttle privatization,” states:

    The [NASA] Administrator shall prepare for an orderly transition from the Federal operation, or Federal management of contracted operation, of space transportation systems to the Federal purchase of commercial space transportation services for all nonemergency space transportation requirements for transportation to and from Earth orbit, including human, cargo, and mixed payloads.
    This language precedes the Obama Administration’s “Commercial Crew and Cargo Program” by more than 20 years. The Reagan Administration successfully privatized NASA’s expendable launch vehicles, resulting in the current commercial industry for unmanned satellite launches, but transferring human spaceflight to the private sector remains unfinished business. Based on the actions and statements of Congress-folk like Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) and Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), it appears that today’s GOP no longer believes in private enterprise and seeks to expand government’s role in space transportation (regardless of its implications for the Federal budget).

    What cannot continue will not continue, however. The Apollo-style, centrally planned space program advocated by both Dumbacher and Strickland is no longer sustainable. Indeed, it hasn’t been sustainable for the last 40 years, which is why NASA has not been back to the Moon. NASA needs to make radical changes if it is to survive. (Just following these laws that are already on the books would go a long way, however.) Currently, there is no indication that politicians are going to allow that.

    http://www.citizensinspace.org/2013/...ant/#more-7776
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  7. #20
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    2,332
    Double post error due to editing.
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  8. #21
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    2,332

    "Underfunding" Delays Orion Capsule Development

    NASA’s $16.5 billion deep space Orion Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) is suffering from underfunding that threatens increasing program risks and causing delays in a program that won’t fly with astronauts until 2021, the space agency’s watchdog reports.

    “Constrained funding for the MPCV forced Program managers to adopt a less-than-optimal incremental development approach in which elements necessary to complete the most immediate tests are given priority while development and testing is delayed on other important but less time sensitive aspects of the Program,” NASA’s Inspector General said in an audit released this week. “While this may be the only realistic and affordable development approach available to NASA given the Program’s current funding profile, such an approach increases risks.”

    The audit also reports that:

    • the MPCV program is already suffering from delays in testing key components and systems, including postponing the Ascent Abort-2 test by 4 years and the Exploration Flight Test-1 9 months;

    • “under the Program’s incremental development strategy NASA has delayed development of many of the life support systems required for performing crewed missions.”

    • the program is further vulnerable to slips if NASA experiences delays in developing the the Space Launch System and ESA with the spacecraft’s service module;

    • the five biggest technical risks include spacecraft weight, vehicle test and verification plan, cracking of the heat shield, heat shield production schedule, and engineering drawing release rate.

    • Even after MPCV is developed, “NASA will continue to face significant challenges concerning the long-term sustainability of its human exploration program. For example, unless NASA begins a program to develop landers and surface systems, NASA astronauts will be limited to orbital missions using the MPCV.”


    http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/08/16/orion-review/
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  9. #22
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    2,332
    Sunday conversation: NASA veteran Chris Kraft upfront with criticism

    By Eric Berger

    September 3, 2013 2:10 PM

    NASA says it's going places, that its plan to develop a new space capsule and rocket will take human astronauts places they've never been before - asteroids and eventually Mars. But many former NASA officials are deeply skeptical about the plan espoused by the space agency, at the direction of the Obama administration. Among the critics is the legendary Chris Kraft, NASA's first manned spaceflight director, for whom Mission Control at Johnson Space Center is named. Kraft spoke recently with science writer Eric Berger about NASA's plans. The following are edited excerpts:

    Q: I know you've been frustrated with the current direction of NASA. What's the problem with the space agency's plan to build the Space Launch System, a so-called heavy-lift rocket?

    A: The problem with the SLS is that it's so big that makes it very expensive. It's very expensive to design, it's very expensive to develop. When they actually begin to develop it, the budget is going to go haywire. They're going to have all kinds of technical and development issues crop up, which will drive the development costs up. Then there are the operating costs of that beast, which will eat NASA alive if they get there. They're not going to be able to fly it more than once a year, if that, because they don't have the budget to do it. So what you've got is a beast of a rocket, that would give you all of this capability, which you can't build because you don't have the money to build it in the first place, and you can't operate it if you had it.

    Q: What do you see as the alternative?

    A: In the private sector we've got an Atlas and a Delta rocket, and the Europeans have a rocket called the Ariane. The Russians have lots of rockets, which are very reliable, and they get reliable by using them. And that's something the SLS will never have. Never. Because you can't afford to launch it that many times.

    Q: So you're saying that NASA should launch its vehicles on existing rockets that can carry less mass into space?

    A: What's so magic about this being able to lift 120 tons? Why can't you use what you've got and put your vehicles into space in pieces, like you did with the space station? That's the right way to do it. Eventually you'll get to the point where, even with a really big rocket, you can't put everything on there you need to go where you want to go. Whether you want to go to the moon or Mars, you're going to have to do something in Earth orbit, or maybe lunar orbit, with an assembly capability, a fuel depot capability and the capability to have people operating there sort of as a Cape Canaveral in the sky.

    Q: Like a lot of people in Congress, you don't like NASA's plan to attempt landing astronauts on an asteroid before maybe trying to go to Mars in the 2030s. Why?

    A: Most in Congress want to see NASA go back to the moon. So do nearly all of the scientific and technical organizations in the world. China said last week they're going to go to the moon. They aren't going just because it's there, it's because it's a place where you want to be from all kinds of points of view, from science, from a resource point of view. There's no reason why you couldn't set up a factory on the moon to build solar panels. You could provide enough electrical power on the moon from solar cells, and eventually you could supply enough power for half the people on Earth with a solar cell farm on the moon. I just think the world is going to use the moon for practical purposes.

    Q: A lot of veteran astronauts and engineers are leaving NASA. Why do you think this is?

    A: Astronauts want to do something that has some excitement to it. The engineers that come to Johnson Space Center want to do something. You go talk to the guys who were doing Constellation (NASA's now-scuttled plan to return to the moon), and the reason they came to NASA was to go back to the moon. They're all leaving now. The leaders are leaving for a lot of other reasons also, but they're leaving because there's no future that they want to be involved in. And that's unfortunate. You've got to have a reason for people to give you their lives, which is what I did. I gave NASA my life not because they asked me to, but because I wanted to. I had a reason. But I just don't think that's there now.

    http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news...622d720edf9b03
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  10. #23
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    2,332
    New NASA rocket faces delays

    September 6, 2013|By Mark K. Matthews, Washington Bureau

    WASHINGTON — The debut launch of NASA's next big rocket — now slated for 2017 — likely will be delayed a year or two because the agency simply does not have the money to finish the rocket and its accompanying crew capsule on time, a top NASA official said Friday.

    Lori Garver, leaving NASA after four years as deputy administrator, said NASA and Congress long have oversold the agency's ability to build the rocket, called the Space Launch System, and its Orion capsule on an annual budget of roughly $3 billion.

    "It's very clear that we could have slips of a year or two," said Garver, referring to both the 2017 launch — which won't have a crew — and the first planned flight of NASA astronauts aboard the SLS rocket in 2021.

    "People are more optimistic than … reality," she said in an interview with the Orlando Sentinel.

    If she's right, the double delay would mean more heartburn for Kennedy Space Center, which has been reeling since the 2011 retirement of the space shuttle caused the loss of thousands of jobs. It would also be another setback for NASA's human-spaceflight program, which hasn't built a new rocket in more than 30 years and relies on Russia to transport astronauts to the International Space Station.

    And perhaps worse, Garver and other critics say, the agency's quixotic bid to build the largest rocket in history will gut other NASA programs, such as probes to further planetary science.

    Read the rest at
    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...-orion-capsule
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  11. #24
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    2,332
    After years of design, testing, and Congressional micromanagement, and after its recent completion and final testing, the SLS second-stage J-2X rocket engine will be mothballed until some time in the 2030's. NASA will use a smaller engine for SLS, the RL-10, an engine that's been around since the early 1960's.

    http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....-01-623762.xml
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-2X
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL-10
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  12. #25
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    2,332
    NASA STENNIS SPACE CENTER TO TEST SPACEX NEXT GENERATION ROCKET ENGINE SYSTEMS

    JACKSON – Another engine rocket testing program is coming to NASA’s Stennis Space Center in south Mississippi, Gov. Phil Bryant announced. SpaceX, a commercial spaceflight company, will bring initial testing of their Raptor methane rocket engines—the latest in propulsion technology, capable of generating nearly 300 tons of thrust in vacuum—to NASA’s Stennis Space Center.

    http://www.governorbryant.com/nasa-s...ngine-systems/

    http://msbusiness.com/blog/2013/10/2...-space-center/

    http://media.sunherald.com/smedia/20...u.AuSt.77.jpeg

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stennis_Space_Center

    "What methane rocket engines?" you ask.

    SpaceX aims big with massive new rocket [Oct 2012]

    Launcher developer SpaceX is designing a new engine for a new rocket, larger than the Falcon 9 that NASA expects to become a mainstay of its Earth orbit operations.
    ...
    Musk said the new rocket, which he calls MCT, will be "several times" as powerful as the 1 Merlin series, and won't use Merlin's RP-1 fuel. Beyond adding that it will have "a very big core size", he declined to elaborate, promising more details in "between one and three years".
    ...
    Shotwell said a possible payload range of the new rocket is 150-200t to low Earth orbit (LEO). A vehicle of that size would easily eclipse NASA's proposed Space Launch System, which will eventually be capable of launching 130t to LEO, making SpaceX's potential vehicle the most capable ever built by a wide margin.
    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...rocket-377687/
    Last edited by Space Racer; 10-23-2013 at 11:31 PM.
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

  13. #26
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Atlanta area
    Posts
    2,332
    Mo Brooks’ First Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Kill (Programs in My State)

    Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) has introduced a measure that would prevent the Obama Administration and any future president from canceling the Space Launch System and Orion crew vehicle programs without Congressional approval while freeing up hundreds of millions of dollars to be applied to those programs.

    Bill H.R. 3625 targets terminal liability funds that Orion and SLS contractors are holding in reserve in case the government decides to cancel these programs for convenience. The measure says that “hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are unavailable for meaningful work on these programs.”
    http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/12/...rograms-state/
    Vacuum Technology:
    CRUD = Contamination Resulting in Undesirable Deposits.
    CRAPP = Contamination Resulting in Additional Partial Pressure.

    Change your vacuum pump oil now.

    Test. Testing, 1,2,3.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event