NASA unveils plans for mammoth rocket

[nec209]

Well reading the news article it is going to be very very vey I say again very very very costly .

 

Reading the news article it saying it is going to be around 2020 before NASA can go in space and about only one space launch a year that is so silly to spend that much money to do only one space launch a year .

 

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/nasa-unveils-plans-for-mammoth-rocket/article2166652/page1/

 

Quote But with a price tag that some estimate at $35-billion, it may not fly with Congress.Quote

 

With this so costly it will be like the space shuttle it will get scrapped in 15 or 20 years if you lucky after going in service.

 

Quote

The multibillion-dollar program would carry astronauts in a capsule on top, and the first mission would be scheduled in 10 years

 

The space agency is aiming for a nearby asteroid around 2025 and then on to Mars in the 2030s. Quote

 

That is just so silly they are going to spend so much money and it is going to take so long before it can go in service and when in service can only go in space 1 time every year.

 

 

So around 2020 it will go in service that is 10 years to build this thing.

 

 

What is your thought on this ? Should NASA spend $35-billion on research to bring space cost down or spend $35-billion on a rocket that will take a long time before it goes in service and only one space launch a year and probably be like the apollo program and space shuttle program and get scrapped for being too costly after if it is lucky of 15 years in service.

[InigoMontoya]

Well, it does explain why NASA has continued to fun ATK for it's 5-segment booster effort, but otherwise... I think it's a bad idea.

[CaptainPanic]

I never understand why we don't send multiple smaller components into LEO, which then combine into a larger spacecraft to get to wherever we want to go.

 

The smaller launch systems are currently being optimized for cost by private companies (and by the Chinese)... so that's definitely going to be the cheapest way (in dollars or euros per ton of cargo) to get stuff off the surface of the planet for a while. The question is how expensive it is to recombine a spacecraft in orbit and then take off. But that seems technology which we already possess: we used it for the ISS too.

 

Seems a bit pointless therefore to aim for an even bigger rocket... although I am really exited by the attempt, and I wouldn't mind seeing it take off in 2020

[Leader Bee]

Damn, and reading the thread title I was hoping to hear about the first Elephant manned mission to space

 

What's an even bigger rocket once a year going to achieve over many smaller rockets over the course of a year?

[InigoMontoya]

What's an even bigger rocket once a year going to achieve over many smaller rockets over the course of a year?

Allow NASA to quickly revive their dreams for a Mars mission after a change of administration.

[Enthalpy]

...It will get scrapped in 15 or 20 years after going in service.

20 years is a long duration, because technology evolves. Even space technology does.

 

20 years ago home PC's were uncommon, tunnel microscopes and hi-temperature superconductors were new, as were fullerenes and nanotubes; graphene and prions had not been discovered; genetic engineering was absent.

When the Shuttle was developed, graphite composites were not usable, stereolithography neither - just as examples - and the Soviet kerosene engines couldn't be purchased.

 

Technology built 20 years ago hence developed 30 years ago is difficult to operate, because the physical support for information (5"1/4 floppies) has changed, because materials and processes have changed, standards as well... The team who discovered the Pioneer anomaly testified about it. Understanding even older objects, like the Fukushima power plants or some war ships, is archaeotechnology.

 

With this is mind, I'd prefer development to be faster, not service to be longer. But putting goals 20 years ahead is just a synonym of "never". Or better, you may hope some technology developed for this fuzzy goal will serve other projects - which must be Nasa's intents.

 

I never understand why we don't send multiple smaller components into LEO, which then combine into a larger spacecraft...

- Assembling small parts into a big craft is made by humans up to now (please feel free to improve that). Over 100 manned flights, you're sure to lose one crew. And each manned flight is extremely expensive.

- Some big parts are difficult to assemble in orbit. I wouldn't assemble a re-entry heat shield for instance: too unreliable. Or a habitat for one year on Mars, which has a minimum size, is heavy even if empty, and is too unreliable if assembled in orbit.

- 100 "small" launches cost a lot. ISS needed launchers not really small.

[nec209]

The big problem why space exploration is not taking of like the combustion engine or first flight the Wright brothers is cost and the same why only 3 countries the US, China and Russia can put people into space.The apollo program ,space shuttle and project constellation proposed by president Bush to get people back to the moon and have a moon base got scrapped do to cost.And going to Mars would be very very costly like no one has ever seen.

 

All the cool x- programs that NASA was doing with conjunction with the Air force in the 80's and 90's and among the VentureStar X-33 got canceled do to lack of money to continue research.No one really knows if any of the x- programs or x-33 would bring space cost down .It may bring it down some what , but still no where to take of like the combustion engine or first flight the Wright brothers .

 

 

 

Has chemical propulsion does not allow for that.

 

The proposed plan by president Obama to send people to a asteroid by 2025 and mars by 2030 would be like no one has seen in history the cost would be nothing like NASA has ever done.It is highly unlikely anyone in government would vote on this bill do to the US major recession and high debt.

Edited September 17, 2011 by nec209

[Enthalpy]

To illustrate why I dislike solid boosters, here are variants of the evolved version putting 130 t into Low-Earth-Orbit. All variants have liquid boosters, whose better performance permit to scrap completely the upper stage, and all have only two cheaper RS-68 at the D=8.4m central stage instead of five expensive SSME.

 

This one has six pressure-fed methane boosters, easy to develop; put less or more of them to adjust the performance.

Additionally, I want them to splash gently into the Ocean and sail back home for re-use, as I explain there

http://saposjoint.ne...php?f=66&t=2554

for which the thick-wall, all-welded steel construction is an advantage.

(click to view full-size)

 

With four pumped kerosene engines, model RD-170 (not made locally up to now, serious drawback). Upgrade capability is even bigger here.

 

And here the three RD-170 burn hydrogen after some modifications explained there

http://saposjoint.ne...start=40#p33694

Unusually, each RD-170 pushes three tanks side-by-side, and only the oxygen tank is built strong to lift the central stage by its top.

 

Marc Schaefer, aka Enthalpy

[CaptainPanic]

- Assembling small parts into a big craft is made by humans up to now (please feel free to improve that). Over 100 manned flights, you're sure to lose one crew. And each manned flight is extremely expensive.

- Some big parts are difficult to assemble in orbit. I wouldn't assemble a re-entry heat shield for instance: too unreliable. Or a habitat for one year on Mars, which has a minimum size, is heavy even if empty, and is too unreliable if assembled in orbit.

- 100 "small" launches cost a lot. ISS needed launchers not really small.

I'm not sure you understood where I wanted to go with my remark. I'll explain better:

 

Why don't we use current technology and existing rockets to build a sort of ISS with much bigger engines and more fuel? Re-entry is as simple as using an existing Soyuz capsule. No point in re-entry for the whole space craft.

 

The obvious big advantage is that we do not have to wait a decade or more until the new rocket is designed and built. And while it is true that 100 launches cost a lot, I am not sure that NASA won't make the price tag of the new rocket even costlier. A single big rocket also has the disadvantage that you're still stuck with a limit to the weight of the space craft. Assembly in orbit has the advantage that you only require more flights, but there is no upper limit to the size of the spacecraft.

 

Btw, as far as I know, docking of capsules and components in space does not necessarily have to be performed by humans. It's not necessary to send a crew up there every time just to connect two components. And I totally agree that certain things shouldn't be built in space (like the heat shield). I think you should only dock things, and minimize the time humans have to do any construction in space.

Edited September 19, 2011 by CaptainPanic