Author Topic: Deep Space and Interplanetary Exploration - The Universe is Timeless  (Read 176873 times)

Natasha Kerensky

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3436
  • Queen of Spades, First Lady of Death, Black Widow
Has NASA given any pertinent on the Centauri system and possible planets?  I can't seem to get a clear picture (ha ha) of why or why not.  With all the explainers being discovered hundreds of light years away, not much seems to be released on on about four out from us.  I find that odd.

Current exoplanet detection techniques (transits, radial-velocity spectroscopy, and gravitational microlensing) are indirect and work only when the target solar system has a certain orientation (edge-on or face-on) when viewed from Earth.  Only a small percentage of systems have the required orientation, which means we have to sample a large number of stars to detect exoplanets.  Given that there are only so many stars in the Sun's neighborhood, that means that our current exoplanet detection techniques are skewed towards sampling large numbers of stars beyond the Sun's neighborhood.

Sometime in the future, we hope to deploy telescopes that use different techniques (interferometry, coronagraphs, external shades) to directly detect and image exoplanets.  If and when that happens, the closer these exoplanets and their parent stars are to us, the easier they will be to detect and image.  You'll see an inversion from indirect detections of large numbers of faraway exoplanets to direct detection and imaging of smaller numbers of nearby exoplanets.

[Disclosure:  In a prior life, I staffed the NRC's last astrophysics decadal survey.]

Wiki "methods of detecting exoplanets" for mind-numbing details.

"Ah, yes.  The belle dame sans merci.  The sweet young thing who will blast your nuts off.  The kitten with a whip.  That mystique?"
"Slavish adherence to formal ritual is a sign that one has nothing better to think about."
"Variety is the spice of battle."
"I've fought in... what... a hundred battles, a thousand battles?  It could be a million as far as I know.  I've fought for anybody who offered a decent contract and a couple who didn't.  And the universe is not much different after all that.  I could go on fighting for another hundred years and it would still look the same."
"I'm in mourning for my life."
"Those who break faith with the Unity shall go down into darkness."

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24875
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
I don't know if folks watched it, but here video of the CRS 9 Dragon mission to ISS from this past week on Youtube.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6262
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
But NASA can't fire the old Shuttle workforce and contractors that Orion/SLS sustain in favor of funding SpaceX's (or any other) manned interplanetary solution.

Yes, they can. I work with a lot of ex-shuttle engineers (NASA and contractor) canned since 2010. Perfect timing, too, since my employer had a graying workforce opening up positions by retirement.

Quote
Quote
That's how it's always been: NASA contracts private companies like Boeing, Lockheed, IBM, etc. to build its moon landers, Apollo V, shuttle, etc., and we go to space. 

Not exactly.  Those old Apollo and Shuttle contracts were essentially military procurement contracts performed on a cost-plus basis under the FAR.  With COTS and CCDev, NASA has exercised its Space Act authorities to fashion more commercial-based contracts that require cost-sharing and pay-only-on-completion milestones.  Or NASA is only making in-kind contributions as a minor partner, as with Red Dragon.

In fact, your point is where I was heading. There's a tendency to simplify SpaceX as "the first private company in space evah!" when, in fact, private companies have been integral to the Western spaceflight process since a V2 first soared into New Mexico's skies. SpaceX has certainly done things differently, but the differences are in the legal fine print.

Quote
NASA deserves credit for investing in some new ways of doing business that really got SpaceX off the ground and restored a native ISS resupply capability in the US at low cost. 

Oh, yes. SpaceX's Falcon 9 series has been developed, proven, and tested for a budget similar to the amount of loose change you can find between the cushions of Boeing's couches. It's a game changer to see two rocket families and a capsule family developed so cheaply, and Boeing, Lockheed, and Ariane are only waking up to it. I think the Ariane 6 gamble is going to flop - its price point isn't low enough to compete with even a partially reusable Falcon 9, but Airbus and Europe have put too much inertia into it to shift to something else before the Ariane 6 flounders on the market.

Quote
And it's not apparent that SpaceX's plans require heavy NASA involvement or funding after ISS, either.

If they keep designing and developing new motors and rockets for the cost of a factory-fresh jumbo jet, true. But there's currently less private market for heavy lift rockets like the Falcon 9 Heavy, let alone the Falcon XX or Mars Colonial Transporter. I mean, you can hope for the "build it and they will come" effect, but it's hard to replace government funding for non-profit colonial or exploration missions.

Then again, SpaceX did some spectacular legal work butting into the USAF launch market once it had proven the Falcon 9 on NASA and commercial launches. A couple of Falcon 9 Heavy or MCT successes, maybe a super-heavy Bigelow space hotel demonstration, and NASA might rethink the SLS. It's already hurting for reasons to use it.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Describe the Clans." "Imagine an entire civilization built out of 80’s Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, & Macho Man Randy Savages ruling over an entire labor force with Einstein Level Intelligence." --Jake Mikolaitis


Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

Natasha Kerensky

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3436
  • Queen of Spades, First Lady of Death, Black Widow
Yes, they can. I work with a lot of ex-shuttle engineers (NASA and contractor) canned since 2010.

Those firings were from when the Shuttle was shut down.  Constellation saved the remaining workforce.  When Constellation was cancelled, SLS/Orion was established to continue protecting that remaining workforce.  NASA was instructed to use the Shuttle/Constellation workforce and systems to the maximum extent practicable in SLS/Orion, and if SLS/Orion are terminated, something else will replace them that utilizes the same.  It has proven impossible to eliminate the remaining Shuttle workforce in the past half-decade, and there's no indication that will change.

Quote
In fact, your point is where I was heading. There's a tendency to simplify SpaceX as "the first private company in space evah!" when, in fact, private companies have been integral to the Western spaceflight process since a V2 first soared into New Mexico's skies. SpaceX has certainly done things differently, but the differences are in the legal fine print.

This misses the point.  There are huge differences between a large military contractor that does some civil space projects on the side at no risk to its capital under cost-plus contracts and a commercial business that participates in civil space projects by risking capital in pay-on-delivery contracts.  The incentives and results are profoundly different. 

It's almost like comparing General Dynamics (or at least its Abrams division) to Caterpillar.  They're both private companies that build tracked vehicles.  But the similarities end there -- very different businesses, markets, contracting methods, profit margins, etc.

Quote
But there's currently less private market for heavy lift rockets like the Falcon 9 Heavy

There's plenty of existing market beyond F9's max payload.  Those payloads just won't use all of FH's capability.  And they don't have to as long as FH is considerably cheaper than its less-capable competitors.

(Also, it's just the Falcon Heavy, not the Falcon 9 Heavy.)

Quote
let alone the Falcon XX

Falcon XX isn't being developed.

Quote
or Mars Colonial Transporter. I mean, you can hope for the "build it and they will come" effect, but it's hard to replace government funding for non-profit colonial or exploration missions.

MCT and Red Dragon development is internally funded from the profit on SpaceX's other product lines.  That's why SpaceX has remained private instead of going public -- so Musk can continue to plow funds into unprofitable but altruistic (at least to him) projects.

Quote
Then again, SpaceX did some spectacular legal work butting into the USAF launch market once it had proven the Falcon 9 on NASA and commercial launches.

I dunno about "spectacular".  More just stubborn.  The USAF position on EELV competition and the cozy relationship with ULA were untenable in the face of a competent new entrant over any significant timeline.

Quote
A couple of Falcon 9 Heavy or MCT successes, maybe a super-heavy Bigelow space hotel demonstration, and NASA might rethink the SLS. It's already hurting for reasons to use it.

NASA is not allowed to rethink the SLS/Orion for a half-dozen political reasons that I can't go into without incurring Rule 4 wrath.

"Ah, yes.  The belle dame sans merci.  The sweet young thing who will blast your nuts off.  The kitten with a whip.  That mystique?"
"Slavish adherence to formal ritual is a sign that one has nothing better to think about."
"Variety is the spice of battle."
"I've fought in... what... a hundred battles, a thousand battles?  It could be a million as far as I know.  I've fought for anybody who offered a decent contract and a couple who didn't.  And the universe is not much different after all that.  I could go on fighting for another hundred years and it would still look the same."
"I'm in mourning for my life."
"Those who break faith with the Unity shall go down into darkness."

BirdofPrey

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4118
Sure they can.
It'll just be essentially the same thing since any new NASA project has to use old space shuttle parts.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24875
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
I hope Falcon Heavy will finally fly soon.  I've been looking at the launch schedule, I've yet see it posted when actual going to fly.

It will be like first time for it, I've not heard terribly alot about the Heavy other than it's scheduled in the fall to fly.

I do wonder if their drone return boosters will come on on land this time since that maybe bit much for 3 boosters to land on the I will Always Love You landing barge.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
There's plenty of existing market beyond F9's max payload.  Those payloads just won't use all of FH's capability.  And they don't have to as long as FH is considerably cheaper than its less-capable competitors.
There's also the fact that with about every revisal, FH's payload for commercially important markets - read GTO - gets marked down. FH(R) with return of first stage is now stated at only 8 tons. For GEO-1800.

Unless reuse of the first stages shaves a consistent at least 25% - and for commercial success better 50% (*) - off their launch prices compared to the one stated for plain FH so far, FH(R) will not be able to compete against Ariane 64. Neither - if the Russians get their act together - against Angara-5V/KVTK with almost identical planned payload and cost profile to Ariane 64. There are no other competitors in the same price field for commercial launches btw, other than the Chinese.

(*) I've seen some analyses that based on SpX pricing models the maximum profit span - and hence possible price reduction in a fire sale - due to heavy, regular reuse would be around 40% of operative costs. Which, unless SpX is running in the reds, should be less than market prices stated.
« Last Edit: 28 July 2016, 11:46:23 by kato »

Lazarus Jaguar

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2823
  • Stop! Hammer Time!
I've been looking at this site again.  I think we need to dust off some of the old plans that got cancelled.  Sea Dragon would be a better idea, even agaisnt the MCT.

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/surfaceorbit.php
You know, I love that every day in Japan is like a very peaceful game of RIFTs. - MadCapellan

around here, April Fools day is Serious! Business!

Natasha Kerensky

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3436
  • Queen of Spades, First Lady of Death, Black Widow
There's also the fact that with about every revisal, FH's payload for commercially important markets - read GTO - gets marked down. FH(R) with return of first stage is now stated at only 8 tons.

Unless reuse of the first stages shaves a consistent at least 25% - and for commercial success better 50% (*) - off their launch prices compared to the one stated for plain FH so far, FH(R) will not be able to compete against Ariane 64.

FH shouldn't need reusability to compete against A64.

A64 is supposed to put up to 11 metric tons into GTO for 90 million Euros.  See http://www.lefigaro.fr/sciences/2014/09/05/01008-20140905ARTFIG00351-ariane-6-la-version-de-la-derniere-chance.php.

FH (not reusable) is supposed to put up to 22 metric tons into GTO for 90 million US dollars.  See http://spacenews.com/spacexs-new-price-chart-illustrates-performance-cost-of-reusability/.

Assuming there are no payloads for FH above 11 metric tons, based on today's Euro/US dollar exchange rates, FH will still be 10%+ cheaper than A64 for those 11 metric ton or lighter payloads.

If the Euro/US dollar return to their historical exchange rate, then FH will be 40%+ cheaper than A64 for any payload within A64's performance envelope.

So even if we throw away half of FH's capability, FH will beat A64 on pricing without resorting to reusability.  If you don't like my numbers, here's an independent analysis using different (older) numbers that came to the same conclusion:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/03/01/could-europes-ariane-6-rocket-beat-spacexs.aspx

I'd also note that data demand keeps going through the roof but there are only so many geostationary slots, so GEO comsat sizes will continue grow as well.  They're already pushing 8 metric ton buses, so it would not be surprising to see some commercial comsats that exceed A64's capabilities and that only FH can launch down the road.

Also, until SpaceX has a half-decade or more of reusable core launches behind it, pricing for F9R and FHR should be taken with a big grain of salt.  Per the Space News article linked above, even SpaceX is currently pricing F9R and FHR the same as their expendable versions.  They won't really know what savings those reusable cores provide until they've had a lot of practice with them.

Quote
Neither - if the Russians get their act together - against Angara-5V/KVTK with almost identical planned payload and cost profile to Ariane 64. There are no other competitors in the same price field for commercial launches btw, other than the Chinese.

The wild card with the Russian and the Chinese launch sectors is not the technology in their new launchers -- which arguably are only catching up with the Atlas V, Ariane 5, and Delta IV generation of launchers that the US and Europe will be retiring in the coming years.  Rather, it's their low labor costs compared to the old western bloc countries.  So far the Chinese say that can't compete price-wise against SpaceX on the commercial market, but I don't know if that will always be true for them or Russia.
"Ah, yes.  The belle dame sans merci.  The sweet young thing who will blast your nuts off.  The kitten with a whip.  That mystique?"
"Slavish adherence to formal ritual is a sign that one has nothing better to think about."
"Variety is the spice of battle."
"I've fought in... what... a hundred battles, a thousand battles?  It could be a million as far as I know.  I've fought for anybody who offered a decent contract and a couple who didn't.  And the universe is not much different after all that.  I could go on fighting for another hundred years and it would still look the same."
"I'm in mourning for my life."
"Those who break faith with the Unity shall go down into darkness."

Natasha Kerensky

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3436
  • Queen of Spades, First Lady of Death, Black Widow
I've been looking at this site again.  I think we need to dust off some of the old plans that got cancelled.  Sea Dragon would be a better idea, even agaisnt the MCT.

The Sea Dragon study was cool, but between the dedicated (nuclear?) powerplant at sea for electrolyzing propellant from seawater and what seawater does to the rocket engine metals, it's hard to see it being a viable proposal today.

Moreover, there's no public details on MCT yet, so we're comparing 1960s apples to 2010s vaporware.
"Ah, yes.  The belle dame sans merci.  The sweet young thing who will blast your nuts off.  The kitten with a whip.  That mystique?"
"Slavish adherence to formal ritual is a sign that one has nothing better to think about."
"Variety is the spice of battle."
"I've fought in... what... a hundred battles, a thousand battles?  It could be a million as far as I know.  I've fought for anybody who offered a decent contract and a couple who didn't.  And the universe is not much different after all that.  I could go on fighting for another hundred years and it would still look the same."
"I'm in mourning for my life."
"Those who break faith with the Unity shall go down into darkness."

Lazarus Jaguar

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2823
  • Stop! Hammer Time!
I only mentioned Sea Dragon due to the 550 ton payload.  More than enough to launch some sort of transit craft. I'm of the opinion the most efficient way to settle mars would be one ship making loop trips between Earth Orbit and Mars Orbit, picking up and dropping off landing modules.   So would have only needed one sea dragon and something else to launch future modules.

I tend to be kinda fanciful in my thinking.  Never tried figuring out the details
You know, I love that every day in Japan is like a very peaceful game of RIFTs. - MadCapellan

around here, April Fools day is Serious! Business!

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
So even if we throw away half of FH's capability, FH will beat A64 on pricing without resorting to reusability.
It's not about "resorting to reusability". It's about SpX's explicit problem that reusability for Falcon Heavy is not something worth the cost. Because the cut in payload capacity is prohibitive.

A 10% price advantage over Ariane 64 is ridiculously low btw. Falcon 9 has a 30% price advantage over the Ariane 5 lower SYLDA slot and ain't exactly dominating the commercially relevant market either due to other reasons (such as reliability).

They're already pushing 8 metric ton buses
There's barely anyone that consistently pushes the full transmitter load and weight option on existing busses (except for institutional customers). And those that do tend look for additional KPI in a launch provider than just cost.

even if we throw away half of FH's capability
The other problem SpX has is that without a new dispensing upper stage you're rather throwing away 70-80% of FH's capacity when it comes to common GEO payloads.  ::)

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24875
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Will SpaceX be able to have their second Stage return like their first?  Were talking about heat shields and dealing with Atmosphere scorching booster.   

I'm not sure if they'll manage to get those 1st Stage Booster going in a cycling of re-usability.  I am no way a engineer, but educated guess would tell me that landing (especially at sea) can be rough business and use going wear small parts.  Heck the solid rocket boosters were less complicated then a drone 1st stage booster and they eventually failed due NASA investigators missing hair line cracks in the O-rings.  These Boosters are more complicated beasties.  Thankfully not landing in water, but forces it endures will likely require some serious hard looking at. 

My point is, has SpaceX finished its evaluation of reusabilities of their Stage 1 rockets?  SpaceX model going need be adjusted if the returned drone ships aren't as reusable as they were first thought and will required more frequent replacing.

I like idea of reusablity, its I do wonder how well it will work.  Specially with Falcon Heavy end up using 3 of these drone boosters at one.   That will make it more interesting of handling multiple ship landings for sure.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

Natasha Kerensky

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3436
  • Queen of Spades, First Lady of Death, Black Widow
It's about SpX's explicit problem that reusability for Falcon Heavy is not something worth the cost. Because the cut in payload capacity is prohibitive.

Sorry if I misunderstood your point.  You may turn out to be right.  But I think it's kind of "angels on a pin" to argue about whether reusability will make economic sense for Falcon Heavy when the expendable version has yet to fly.

Quote
A 10% price advantage over Ariane 64 is ridiculously low btw.

I disagree -- it's significant enough to change decisions by government buyers in my experience, and they're looser with their budgets than commercial buyers.  But as I wrote above, the only reason it's 10% is because I'm using the current Euro/$ exchange rate, which is historically low.  Use a higher historical rate, and it's in the 40% neighborhood.

Quote
Falcon 9 has a 30% price advantage over the Ariane 5 lower SYLDA slot and ain't exactly dominating the commercially relevant market either due to other reasons (such as reliability).

A couple points:

1) The worldwide commercial launch market is basically an Ariane/Falcon game now.  Ariane won 14 contracts last year (2015), Falcon won 9, and Proton and Atlas won only 1 each.    In the prior year (2014), Ariane and Falcon tied with 9 contracts each, with 1 contract each to HII and Atlas.  Falcon may not be the market leader, but it's very clearly tied with or in the number two slot behind Ariane.

2) No one will ever "dominate" this market because launch buyers want multiple providers to ensure that launch failures don't create unavailability and to ensure pricing competition.  One launcher can have large competitive advantages across the board, and the buyers will still keep a second, non-competitive launcher healthy and a third or fourth on life support.  The players and their positions have changed over the years, but that's basically what the market has been like most years -- a leader, a close follower, and onsie/twosie awards to a couple marginal players.

Quote
There's barely anyone that consistently pushes the full transmitter load and weight option on existing busses (except for institutional customers). And those that do tend look for additional KPI in a launch provider than just cost.

Sure, but that wasn't the point.  The point is that we already have 8-ton buses, not far from A64's 11-ton payload capacity to GTO, and the economics of data demand and geostationary slots will drive us past that in coming years.  We don't know when the threshold will be crossed, but it's inevitable given long-standing trends.

Quote
The other problem SpX has is that without a new dispensing upper stage you're rather throwing away 70-80% of FH's capacity when it comes to common GEO payloads.  ::)

That's not necessarily true with newer sat buses these days.  F9 did at least one dispenserless dual launch of GEOsats (that I recall).  Even Ariane considered with doing away with A5's dual launches in Ariane PPH before bringing them back on A62/64.
"Ah, yes.  The belle dame sans merci.  The sweet young thing who will blast your nuts off.  The kitten with a whip.  That mystique?"
"Slavish adherence to formal ritual is a sign that one has nothing better to think about."
"Variety is the spice of battle."
"I've fought in... what... a hundred battles, a thousand battles?  It could be a million as far as I know.  I've fought for anybody who offered a decent contract and a couple who didn't.  And the universe is not much different after all that.  I could go on fighting for another hundred years and it would still look the same."
"I'm in mourning for my life."
"Those who break faith with the Unity shall go down into darkness."

Natasha Kerensky

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3436
  • Queen of Spades, First Lady of Death, Black Widow
Will SpaceX be able to have their second Stage return like their first?

Remains to be seen. That's a more difficult problem with less potential payoff.

Quote
I'm not sure if they'll manage to get those 1st Stage Booster going in a cycling of re-usability.

Also remains to be seen.  They've brought some back intact which is step one.  But refurbishing them cheaply and reflying them reliably have yet to be practiced.

Quote
My point is, has SpaceX finished its evaluation of reusabilities of their Stage 1 rockets?

No, far from it.  In fact, they fired up one of the returned boosters for the first time on a test stand just this week.

Quote
I like idea of reusablity, its I do wonder how well it will work.  Specially with Falcon Heavy end up using 3 of these drone boosters at one.   That will make it more interesting of handling multiple ship landings for sure.

Space Shuttle was supposed to be reusable.  But you wouldn't call rebuilding your car's engines and brakes after every trip to the grocery store reusable.

Falcon is much simpler and more elegant than Shuttle, but that alone is no guarantee that it will be economically reusable.

The devil is in the details.  Only time will tell.  [Add your own idiom here.]
"Ah, yes.  The belle dame sans merci.  The sweet young thing who will blast your nuts off.  The kitten with a whip.  That mystique?"
"Slavish adherence to formal ritual is a sign that one has nothing better to think about."
"Variety is the spice of battle."
"I've fought in... what... a hundred battles, a thousand battles?  It could be a million as far as I know.  I've fought for anybody who offered a decent contract and a couple who didn't.  And the universe is not much different after all that.  I could go on fighting for another hundred years and it would still look the same."
"I'm in mourning for my life."
"Those who break faith with the Unity shall go down into darkness."

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
2) No one will ever "dominate" this market because launch buyers want multiple providers to ensure that launch failures don't create unavailability and to ensure pricing competition.
Arianespace doesn't have the capacity to dominate the market. They sell as much as they can launch pretty much. There are no leaders in this market. There are those that have a full orderbook and launch it all as planned (Arianespace), there are those that have a full orderbook and launch it all in such a way that customers at least don't jump off the wagon (SpaceX), there are those that are completely unsuccessful in the non-institutional commercial market (ULA) and there are those that beat everyone else to short-notice contracts through their prices (ILS mostly).

That's not necessarily true with newer sat buses these days.  F9 did at least one dispenserless dual launch of GEOsats (that I recall).
... using specially built stackable satellites (a modified BSS-702SP) that were loaded to a rather low fuel+payload ratio.

People who buy the SP also buy SpaceX btw, there's been only a single launch of a BSS-702SP on the lower SYLDA slot of an Ariane - then again only two companies even run the SP at all yet (Eutelsat and ABS). It's sorta like how SSL-1300 or Spacebus-C customers are also the primary customers of ILS for launch, or Spacebus-B has a huge preponderance on Ariane. GeoStar historically did too, although Orbital ATK has pretty much dropped off the bus market now.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24875
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Deep Space and Interplanetary Exploration - The Universe is Timeless
« Reply #586 on: 01 August 2016, 08:49:39 »
NASA has spelled out their mission plans with SpaceX's Red Dragon mission.

Their basically providing the Deep Space Network to support them and some personnel while Red Dragon does the hard work and expensive side of it.  The Red Dragon is 8-10 ton vehicle, hopefully it will be launching with next couple years.  The estimated between 2018 and 2020.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
Re: Deep Space and Interplanetary Exploration - The Universe is Timeless
« Reply #587 on: 01 August 2016, 11:53:02 »
DSN ain't exactly free. And Red Dragon takes away capacity from actual scientific missions, in particular if they manage to launch it in 2020...

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6952
Re: Deep Space and Interplanetary Exploration - The Universe is Timeless
« Reply #588 on: 01 August 2016, 13:17:11 »
Well, Red Dragon is a science mission of sorts - NASA wants to be part of it to see how the new systems work and so on. After all they were planning their own mission with the exact same goal, just 10 years later.

And while I doubt anything's been decided yet I would expect the Red Dragon capsule to contain at least some experiments for when (if) it makes it to Mars' surface.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24875
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Deep Space and Interplanetary Exploration - The Universe is Timeless
« Reply #589 on: 01 August 2016, 13:31:50 »
I wonder if this will be a return mission.  I keep thinking how the Red Dragon Capsule was going to have enough fuel relaunch.  The Draco2 rockets are suppose to be for when it lands, not for relaunches.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
Re: Deep Space and Interplanetary Exploration - The Universe is Timeless
« Reply #590 on: 01 August 2016, 13:37:22 »
NASA wants to be part of it to see how the new systems work and so on.
That's technology demonstration, not science.

Aviationweek did a supposed NASA wishlist a month ago (subscriber only, can't read it either).

From what i've seen those 30 million are planned to be the entirety of NASA's involvement with Red Dragon. Of those 30 million at least half will effectively be spent on DSN, and the other half might include (non-scientific) technology demonstration experiments if that department of NASA gets their say; nominally that other half is earmarked for planetary protection concerns, because otherwise SpaceX would just go their merry way contaminating the universe. One possible example of such a technology demonstration experiment named here is an ISRU study, in parallel to one done by NASA on Mars 2020 anyway - this stuff is moderately cheap.

Under the existing drawn-up agreement - drafted in April - NASA will only get full data of the EDL phase (i.e. entry to landing) in return for the DSN access.

According to a Reddit discussion of the Aviationweek article it basically says that NASA has a list of around 20 instruments that could fly on Red Dragon in 2018 in theory but that won't since NASA ain't spending money on that and SpaceX isn't interested much in flying hosted payload anyway. Most of those instruments would be developed - i.e. have flight models - for Mars 2020 anyway, and some won't fly on Mars 2020 either.
« Last Edit: 01 August 2016, 13:52:16 by kato »

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24875
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Deep Space and Interplanetary Exploration - The Universe is Timeless
« Reply #591 on: 03 August 2016, 21:20:12 »
Looks like the Boeing Starliner is coming along.  Some info about the challenges their having doing the Starliner and Dragon 2.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

BirdofPrey

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4118
Re: Deep Space and Interplanetary Exploration - The Universe is Timeless
« Reply #592 on: 04 August 2016, 01:30:49 »
I haven't been watching that closely, how far along is Orion in comparison?
I heard something about more drop testing, but don't know where that puts development.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24875
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Deep Space and Interplanetary Exploration - The Universe is Timeless
« Reply #593 on: 04 August 2016, 07:28:15 »
SLS/Orion program having some issues, not technical side of it. Cost wise and NASA continue issue about not knowing what do with Human Space program. 

Christian Scientist Monitor Cites that Government Accountability Office (GOA) as  NASA isn't ready for trip to Mars.  Right now the Orion set to do two test missions, first one Exploration Mission 1 in 2018, and another in 2021-23 ish.  This is due to the budget. 

Problem lack of idea what to do.  So many competing things wanting funding, ISS is soaking alot of it, now Orion is doing rest.  That's why they have private carriers, so the money can be funnel into exploration.

I'm not going talk about politics about this, which half of the Orion's problem right now.

I just hope to gaud Private Carriers are able to carry on with exploration, NASA isn't funded or ran well enough to do it anymore.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

BirdofPrey

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4118
Re: Deep Space and Interplanetary Exploration - The Universe is Timeless
« Reply #594 on: 04 August 2016, 09:16:51 »
I already know about Exploration mission 1 and 2, though the details I've seen are rather vague, which isn't a good sign.  I was more wondering how close to completion Orion and SLS are regardless of when the first actual missions are planned, and how that compares to the progress of the commercial crew capsules.

As for politics, those have always (and likely always will be) problematic for any project.  Everyone had a different idea of where time and money should be spent, and science and technology always seem to feel the pinch more than other concerns, though, frankly, I think politics have been much more of a problem for SLS than Orion.
Politics aside, changing decision makers every few years always has negative consequences for long term projects.

Natasha Kerensky

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3436
  • Queen of Spades, First Lady of Death, Black Widow
Re: Deep Space and Interplanetary Exploration - The Universe is Timeless
« Reply #595 on: 04 August 2016, 10:00:50 »
I haven't been watching that closely, how far along is Orion in comparison?
I heard something about more drop testing, but don't know where that puts development.

NASA and LockMart are working towards an "internal" schedule of 2021 for Orion's first crewed flight, but they only have a 40% chance of making that.  The official, external schedule is 2023, but that is still at only a 70% confidence level.  Just last week, there was a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that explains these grim projections.  Here's a good overview, with links to the report:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/07/a-new-independent-review-of-the-orion-spacecraft-is-pretty-damning/

The Orion program has had to move so much testing downstream related to crew support and flight safety that I doubt the next NASA Administrator will let astronauts fly on Orion without a major schedule rework that will probably involve further delays.  But that's my educated guess -- no one is saying that officially or publicly.

I also doubt the Orion program survives the next couple years.  Orion has been in design or development for 12-odd years now, and won't carry astronauts until the second term of the next President at best.  It's hard to see the new White House being content continuing to spend billions on that programmatic performance (or lack thereof).  This is a programmatic, not political, choice that the next Administration faces, but I won't say more because I don't want to risk a Rule #4 warning.

I hesitate to compare Orion to crewed Dragon or Starliner because Orion is a cislunar vehicle while those are purely low-Earth orbit vehicles.  (Red Dragon is a deep space vehicle but not crewed.)  That said, Dragon and Starliner are scheduled to fly their first crews in 2018.  One or both may slip to 2019.

Outside of short lunar missions, I think it's fair to say that Orion is a suboptimal solution to human space flight beyond low Earth orbit that has been further nerfed by a range of issues from bad requirements, poor technical choices, and politics.

SLS/Orion program having some issues, not technical side of it.  Cost wise and NASA continue issue about not knowing what do with Human Space program.

That's not really accurate.  There are substantial technical issues with Orion's heat shield, software, service module, etc.

As the program spends more now to tackle those near-term problems, they are shifting other issues downstream in the schedule to fit within their budget.  This is creating a bow wave of problems that will swamp the program at some point in the future.  This is the key warning in the GAO report.

But the appropriated budget for Orion has been well above NASA request for years now.  It's not that Orion isn't getting the money the program asks for.  They're actually getting more.  It's that the program has way more problems that what they projected and budgeted for.

I already know about Exploration mission 1 and 2, though the details I've seen are rather vague, which isn't a good sign.

The test missions are well-defined.  They're unmanned and manned loops around the Moon.

What has been undefined is what comes after.  It's undefined because there is no human exploration budget to build anything else.  SLS and Orion are too expensive for the available budget if we also want to build landers, habitats, deep space propulsion, etc. for human exploration missions to actual targets (Moon, Lagrange point telescopes, near-Earth asteroids, Mars, etc.).

Quote
changing decision makers every few years always has negative consequences for long term projects.

Well, the lesson is not to formulate or start programs that can't be completed within an 8-year or so timeframe.  Apollo was 8 years and 2 months from start to Apollo 11. 

We certainly can't spend 12 years on a large human space exploration capsule and still be an uncertain 5 to 7 years or more from putting astronauts in it with no other exploration hardware in sight.
« Last Edit: 04 August 2016, 10:03:15 by Natasha Kerensky »
"Ah, yes.  The belle dame sans merci.  The sweet young thing who will blast your nuts off.  The kitten with a whip.  That mystique?"
"Slavish adherence to formal ritual is a sign that one has nothing better to think about."
"Variety is the spice of battle."
"I've fought in... what... a hundred battles, a thousand battles?  It could be a million as far as I know.  I've fought for anybody who offered a decent contract and a couple who didn't.  And the universe is not much different after all that.  I could go on fighting for another hundred years and it would still look the same."
"I'm in mourning for my life."
"Those who break faith with the Unity shall go down into darkness."

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Deep Space and Interplanetary Exploration - The Universe is Timeless
« Reply #596 on: 04 August 2016, 13:51:36 »
We certainly can't spend 12 years on a large human space exploration capsule and still be an uncertain 5 to 7 years or more from putting astronauts in it with no other exploration hardware in sight.
Also from a practical stand point if a program/project is too slow then it will start having problems with retaining knowledge/expertise (as people retire, die or find other work).
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Natasha Kerensky

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3436
  • Queen of Spades, First Lady of Death, Black Widow
Re: Deep Space and Interplanetary Exploration - The Universe is Timeless
« Reply #597 on: 04 August 2016, 20:28:55 »
Also from a practical stand point if a program/project is too slow then it will start having problems with retaining knowledge/expertise (as people retire, die or find other work).

The problem is more subtle than that.  We shouldn't assume that NASA's human space flight workforce has a lot of practical development know-how to begin with.  NASA and its contractors have lots of engineers who operate the International Space Station day-in/day-out or who planned and ran Space Shuttle missions for years.  But operating something is not the same thing as designing and building that same thing.   

Apollo was developed 50 years ago, Space Shuttle 35 years ago, and the International Space Station almost 20 years ago.  Opportunities to build a new human space flight system at NASA are practically generational.  There's little opportunity for practical, experiential learning cycles, and there are few experienced development managers still in place when a new system design/build cycle is started.

Thanks to their portfolio of different-sized spacecraft and missions, the robotic side of NASA doesn't suffer this problem (at least not to the same degree).  Somehow, NASA's human space flight programs have to find a way to define, incorporate, and sustain some smaller Mercury- and Gemini-type efforts among the Apollo/Shuttle/ISS/SLS/Orion efforts, and to get the size of the ISS/SLS/Orion-type efforts back to an Apollo development timeframe.
« Last Edit: 04 August 2016, 20:30:56 by Natasha Kerensky »
"Ah, yes.  The belle dame sans merci.  The sweet young thing who will blast your nuts off.  The kitten with a whip.  That mystique?"
"Slavish adherence to formal ritual is a sign that one has nothing better to think about."
"Variety is the spice of battle."
"I've fought in... what... a hundred battles, a thousand battles?  It could be a million as far as I know.  I've fought for anybody who offered a decent contract and a couple who didn't.  And the universe is not much different after all that.  I could go on fighting for another hundred years and it would still look the same."
"I'm in mourning for my life."
"Those who break faith with the Unity shall go down into darkness."

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24875
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Deep Space and Interplanetary Exploration - The Universe is Timeless
« Reply #598 on: 05 August 2016, 07:40:32 »
Those cycles is what leading to being less people being in the space related fields and less space development.  Commercial Satelelite builders have experience in some aspects, but the sheer cost to doing space program how we've imagined as culture for last 50 years is daunting.   It took the US a national effort to go to the Moon and put people there. To prove a point to its people it could do it.  The legacy of the effort in US (my opinion) is continuing support for the space program from both political sides of the US political spectrum.

I strongly believe commercial efforts, like SpaceX, is going be able get people going beyond the moon. NASA is extremely important, but in the end it will take someone not hindered by multiple voices wanting different things.   I hope more companies like SpaceX are able to emerge and be able make enough go ahead to go beyond the Earth and the Moon.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24875
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Deep Space and Interplanetary Exploration - The Universe is Timeless
« Reply #599 on: 08 August 2016, 08:30:27 »
Here some RANDOM NEWS.

China is posed to send off their second space lab/temporary space station in September.
Spacedaily.com reports that rockets were shipped by rail to the launch site get ready to launch them.

Its interesting, that China continues to progress upwards and on wards while the west struggle to organize themselves to decide what their doing.  I'm not making political statement,  Its so frustrating that US space program, nevermind Europe, has so much trouble deciding what to do beyond sending a random (expensive) probe into deep space.
« Last Edit: 08 August 2016, 08:37:01 by Wrangler »
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

 

Register