The Space Shuttle never lived up to some of the biggest promises made about it.

It was never the cheapest way to launch people and cargo to orbit. Quite the contrary actually.

It was never reusable in the sense they claimed it would be. If the airlines had to rebuild half of the airplane in between every flight, the airline industry simply would not exist.

Shuttle has wings for one reason, as a glider after reentry. There's absolutely no room for error. If the reentry timing is off, you're screwed because like Musk said, there are only a few runways in the entire world capable of hosting a Shuttle landing. You have no options in a 100 ton glider with stubby wings.

The absurd level of complexity of the Space Shuttle vehicle system, and the poor safety record is exactly why it is a failure overall.

It was in interesting distraction for NASA over the past 30 years, and we found one half decent use for it building ISS (not that it was necessary for building a space station as the Russians proved), but it's time to get back to a manned space program that makes sense.

"The absurd level of complexity of the Space Shuttle vehicle system, and the poor safety record is exactly why it is a failure overall."

The shuttle was NOT a failure overall. It was a very complex system. It had two major tragedies. But it was NOT a failure. Using your argument the space shuttles performed excellently against the odds for the vast majority of their flights. That is not failure. To listen to your argument, the space shuttles should have crashed on every flight, but they didn't. The space shuttle is an amazing machine with over two million parts. It's an engineering marvel and even with it's shortcomings it's still magnificent.

The Space shuttle has less than 1% of the computing power of an Xbox 360, most things made today can do things the shuttle can't do.

And I really want to see human on Mars in my life time, I want to see us begin to colonize the Moon in my lifetime. I want to go into space someday for an affordable price. This is why I hope private space flight really takes off.

@ mob_barley

Agreed! Considering how many disasters the Apollo missions had as an average over the number of flights, the Shuttle is the safest manned space vehicle in recorded history

I think too many people are all too ready to condemn the shuttle as a failure. It was brutally expensive for what it did, but it was built under a number of assumptions about the future of space flight that just never occurred during its operational lifespan, like 100 flights/year, competing with commercial ventures for dragging up tons of hardware in LEO launches, assemple multiple space stations, etc.

However, I think that the Shuttle may be the last true spaceplane+truck for quite some time, at least until nano-material science is able to build super-light variable geometry aeroshells that can adapt between atmosphere and space allowing an all-in-one crew+cargo system that doesn't go through a hot re-entry.

Until then, it's gonna be rockets, better, faster, more efficient rockets.

Personally, I think the next major undertaking in space should be to build a fully automated orbital factory in space that can build its own components and maybe even assemble new structures and install them onto itself using nothing more than raw materials brought to it from astronauts! The ultimate purpose would be to work as a dry-dock for creating space craft out of raw materials.

The future of spacecraft is fabrication in space as far as I'm concerned. Energy is more abundant, it takes significantly less energy to smelt and weld thanks to the vaccum, and most importantly, the craft that can be built do not need to be designed to fit into and survive rocket launches from Earth.

Seriously, about the spacecraft fabrication in space... I couldn't agree more. When one thinks about real space ships I think we need to begin imagining a space ship that never lands. Basically it would be a mother ship, holding the crew and passengers and then releasing landing craft and probes as needed. (although, if we could develop tech that would allow a mothership of this kind to land on a heavy gravity surface that would be awesome).

Fully automated orbital factory that adds to itself... I love the idea. I think that is where the Robonaut2 idea is heading. It's an exciting time for space flight in my opinion. It's just going to get crazier and cooler.

@ mob_barley

Agreed! I can't help but think that we are one the cusp of a space/tech/energy renaissance. All of these technologies will eventually (hopefully soon) coalesce into some spectacularly amazing things! Propelling humanity into new economies of scale, deep space, space mining, and being able to solve numerous problems that plague us on earth!

If we can just make the step from Earth to space industry I have no doubt we will be able to solve the issues that are on most people lips today. Hunger, employment, land development, education, all these things will benefit greatly if only we can delve heavily into space. But it's going to require that space/tech/energy renaissance.

Aerodynamic surfaces are the price of coming back from vacuum. the Shuttle orbiter, X-37, etc have wings, Dragon and every ballistic capsule before (or after) it has a heat shield...which likely generates some 'lift' on the way down. It's even more important if you intend to re-fly the thing. Shuttle do, Dragon is intended to.

Wings let you use existing runway infrastructure (okay, not every runway on Earth, the orbiter needs at least 15,000 feet of it...but plenty of other aircraft have minimum runway requirements that many small airports can't meet).

Wings and other aerodynamic surfaces are irrelevant only if you never expect to leave vacuum with it again. Wings on the Lunar Module would've been pointless...but these aren't that.

I expected better of Elon than to recite the old 'what's the point of wings in orbit' mantra. On pretty much everything else, I agree with him.

"Personally, I think the next major undertaking in space should be to build a fully automated orbital factory in space that can build its own components and maybe even assemble new structures and install them onto itself using nothing more than raw materials brought to it from astronauts! The ultimate purpose would be to work as a dry-dock for creating space craft out of raw materials."

What's the point, Seriously? If you have to bring up the raw materials anyway, how is it better than manufacturing spacecraft elements down here, and launching them complete and ready for assembly, in orbit, a'la Mir and ISS?

Why add the difficulty (automated or not) of creating finished products out of raw materials (including the energy to do it) in vacuum and microgravity, when manufacturing infrastructure exists down here, in a mostly shirtsleeve environment?

"(although, if we could develop tech that would allow a mothership of this kind to land on a heavy gravity surface that would be awesome)."

Mob, if you can do that, you might as well initially build it down here, too...

You do these things in space only when there's a distinct advantage to doing so (manufacturing processes that need, or are greatly enhanced by microgravity, or unlimited hard vacuum) that make it worth the additional trouble, and not just because it's cool. or because you can...

If you have to bring up the raw materials anyway, how is it better than manufacturing spacecraft elements down here, and launching them complete and ready for assembly, in orbit, a'la Mir and ISS?

Mob, if you can do that, you might as well initially build it down here, too...

The point is, you can't build a mothership type craft down here. As a thought experiment it would be nice to have the antigrav or whatever is necessary to get from terra to space but we don't have that at this point, so if we were to build such a craft at this point it really would need to be built in space. And if you are going to build it in space then an automated factory would be very beneficial. If you are thinking about simple mass to orbit then certain items would benefit from being built here and certain items would benefit from being built on orbit. Heavy lifters could take up large quantities of raw materials tightly packed which would create a certain amount of savings financially when compared with a prefab structure that contains any large volumetric voids. For example you could build a habitat module and fill it with components for installation on orbit. That would be a pretty good use of space on a cargo lifter. But you'd never be able to create large volume spaces for a space craft that was to be built in module form. And any "mothership" I design would very likely have large spaces on it's interior. If I'm going to design a mothership it won't look anything like the module style craft we all see in the current plans. If components are shipped to the automated factory and then assembled in space then you are limited to the size of components that you can lift with your heavy lifters. Shipping large volumes of raw materials would allow you to create larger components in the factory on orbit. I hope you see where I'm going with this. An automated space factory is the only way we'd be able to build the kind of things that I have floating around in my brain. But it's really all semantics anyways. Any good mothership will have some kind of artificial gravity and other tech that we just don't have today, so it's all a big pipe dream at this point. For now, I'm okay with building modules down here and shipping them to space.

Frank Glover

What's the point, Seriously? If you have to bring up the raw materials anyway, how is it better than manufacturing spacecraft elements down here, and launching them complete and ready for assembly, in orbit, a'la Mir and ISS?

Ahhh, notice my wording. "Raw materials brought to it by astronauts" I didn't mentioned launched from Earth now did I? hehehe. Now albeit, the first space factory is likely to get all of its materials from Earth, but what I want is for the experiment to focus on an autonemous factory that just needs raw materials brought in to support itself. This way, the next challenge of finding raw materials in space can be focused on, allowing space-fabrication rather than having to spend time taking materials back to Earth to do anything with them ^_^

Additionally, loading solid ingots of aluminum, steel, plastics, partially assembled-battery components, electronics components, etc. are likely far easier to launch and maneuver than delicate instruments and partially/fully completed spacecraft components.

Also, I think as a logical progression, it would be better to practice fabricating stuff in space first and then look for resources, than to figure out space mining first and then have no idea what to do with the crap we end up collecting. Also, building a spaceship from scratch in orbit will (hopefully) allow us to build something perfectly suited for the missions its meant for rather than first being perfectly suited to survive being sent up into orbit in chunks, then suited to be pieced together like legos, then and only after those two other criteria are met, that it be capable of achieving the missions it was meant for!

I see not fabricating in space like attempting to build aircraft carriers for the Pacific Fleet in Montana. Just how capable would an aircraft carrier be if its components had to be made in connectable pieces, shipped by truck and rail, then launched by cannon, to be assembled in rafts halfway out to Hawaii in the middle of the ocean?

Ray smith:

There are lots of things that various vehicles can do, but there are also some that the shuttle can do that no capsule can do. The question is not what can it do, but does it meet the requirements of what you need it to do. The shuttle can't go beyond low earth orbit, but it was never designed to do. That is like saying a mini cooper is a pile of crap because it can't to 20 tons of cargo. Well that is a loaded statement because that isn't what a mini cooper is designed to do.

GendoIkari:

The Space Shuttle met ALL the technical requirements asked of it. And the ONLY vehicle in the US inventory that COULD deliver that much payload in a single launch, the throw mass, was the Titan IV and guess what, it cost the exact same amount per launch that the shuttle did per pound.

As for the shuttle landing sites, the shuttle could land at ANY airport that can accommodate a 747. That is most airports in the US that are CLASS A airports, as well as the many that are located around the world. As for the room for error, this is a comment where musk is completely wrong. You have FAR more room for error with the Space Shuttle than you do with a capsule, BECAUSE you have those stubby little wings. Those wings let you control your energy dissipation as you come in. You are going to overshoot your landing target, you pull the nose up, undershoot it, you push the nose down. A capsule has almost NO room for error, and it is even worse in that if you land in the ocean, you have to have a recovery ship near you. You want to pay the Navy to have ships all around the world to wait for potential recovery?

As for the risk, such is the nature of the beast when you are talking space travel. It is risky business. If you aren't interested in taking that risk, then don't fly. Nobody is forcing you. And no-one that flies into space is ignorant of the risks.

While the shuttle obviously did NOT meet the financial objectives, this was not a technical problem, it was an OPERATIONAL problem. It couldn't meet the original flight target, but funny thing is, that flight target was decided upon prior to the final design, so that flight target was arrived at while the vehicle was a much smaller vehicle with a maximum 5000 pound payload. It was also when there was to be two space stations in earth orbit, a space station in lunar orbit, an orbital transfer vehicle, and lots of other hardware in space. The space shuttle morphed into a completely different vehicle, and that flight estimate was never changed. It should never have been expected to fly that much, especially since the plant to build the external tanks could never produce more than 10 in any given year.

Another aspect of the shuttle cost is that it ended up doing things that were never expected of it. So if you have a design that was intended to bring up many standardized payloads, you can bring down your operational costs. That isn't how it was used, every flight, except for one, was a custom mission that required millions upon millions of dollars of logistical work. That, adding in the cost of making sure that everything is done on any given flight, requiring in mission replanning etc.. increased the costs significantly.
That one flight that was a reflight, cost NASA 120 million dollars. Think about that. The knockdown cost of a space shuttle flight was 120 million dollars (in 1996 or 97 dollars). That is NOWHERE near what I would call a financial failure.

Why will Dragon X never cost as much as the shuttle? Simple. It just doesn't do as much. You are not actually saving any money by reducing capabilities. You are just reducing your capability.

mob:

I agree, the shuttle was very complex, and the two accidents, while regrettable, were not tragedies, they were the cost of doing business. Their sacrifices in my mind were worth more than all the lives lost in the two pointless stupid wars we are in right now.

Seriously, not really, just create standardized cargo containers that can fit in the payload bay. If and when that market develops, I still think the basic shuttle design is viable, very viable. It just depends on realistic economic assumptions being used in the business planning, and as I stated in the other thread, the cost of developing a vehicle that uses another paradigm is probably going to break the bank, but not necessarily give you a better vehicle.

And the problem isn't 'nano materials', the question is really can we create an active energy management system for reentry. The heat generated on reentry is the heat generated from the shuttle slowing down. If we can create an engine that can actually fly the shuttle into the atmosphere (the opposite direction of the launch direction) then the vehicle will need far less energy to dissipate as it is coming in.

The cost benefit however is always going to be a cost of development compared to cost of operation. Until you get to say 200 flights a year, a rocket will always win the economic benefit because the up front development costs are cheaper with a rocket. When you get up to a certain number of flights a year, you start getting into economies of scale/frequency and the massive increase in development cost starts to make the total economic equation work.

Frank:

All space vehicles that are built that have any form of directional control are lifting bodies. In the case of a capsule, the body is all you get. In the case of the space shuttle you have the wings, but that is just the extend of the vehicle frame that gives you lift. The only vehicles that weren't lifting bodies were Mercury and Vostok. They had no control over where they landed.

ALL

I agree that the next step needs to be orbital manufacturing, and this is where the shuttle could have played a role. There is no point having a factory in space if you can't actually bring your product back down to earth in quantity. And it is this manufacturing that is going to provide the revenue to push us further and further into space. It is this that is going to make it a viable industry.

Musk is constantly talking about going to mars, but he hasn't really talked about where it is he is going to make the money to make this a viable industry. He is just another vendor that NASA uses to build equipment for them as far as I can see. Is this wrong, no, but is he the saviour to the industry? no, he is just another in a long line of contractors and in my mind should be treated as such.

As far as materials for an orbital space station? there is a big mine that is about a quarter million miles away that has PLENTY of aluminum, titanium oxygen, silicon, etc… how about we get it from there. refine it there, ship it refined to a space station, then manufacture product, then bring to earth for sale. (yes I know easier said than done)

Cheers

Mob Barley and Jonathon,

From an economics standpoint, Space Shuttle was a dismal failure. They sold Congress on it becoming the cheapest ever access to LEO per pound. It wound up being the exact opposite. I call that a HUGE failure. Also, Shuttle has a 1.5% catastrophic failure rate. That is also a HUGE failure of the PROMISES made in order to sell Congress in it.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over the fact that we aren't paying another $1.3 billion for another shuttle mission.

By all means though, live in your delusional fantasy world. I really don't give a @!$%#.

As far as materials for an orbital space station? there is a big mine that is about a quarter million miles away that has PLENTY of aluminum, titanium oxygen, silicon, etc… how about we get it from there. refine it there, ship it refined to a space station, then manufacture product, then bring to earth for sale. (yes I know easier said than done)

You do realize that there's no coal and massively abundant amounts of chemically unbound molecular oxygen on the Moon for metal refining processes, don't you?

We could theoretically build and launch a big nuclear powered refinery core (although it's never even been tried on Earth), but I guarantee you the environmentalists and NIMBYs won't let you launch a big nuclear power plant on top of a big rocket.

GendoIkari:

The problem with that assessment is that you insinuate that the shuttle should have made money. It shouldn't have. The economics is not relevant. If it could have made money, then the private industry should have owned and operated the shuttle. That is the POINT of NASA. To do worthwhile things that don't necessarily make money.

Also, the 1.3Billion is a WRAPPED amount that includes the cost of the payloads. The cost of a raw shuttle flight in 1997 dollars was about 120 million dollars. That competes quite well with proposed launch systems.

Also, you only need coal to make steel and to create energy. There is plenty of energy available to draw upon in order to facilitate industrial processes in place. It is called the sun, and unlike earth, there is no cloud cover to reduce the efficiency.

I seriously won't lose any sleep when something you are passionate about gets killed because of some short sighted idiots.

Indeed, no space craft on Earth, apart from the Space Shuttle, could take crew and cargo to and from Low Earth Orbit. It is a truly unique ship and it will be missed by many.

Agreed, but I think there's less and less of a need for bringing cargo delicately back to Earth. I think that was a pivotal factor which was over-valued at the time, causing too many compromises in the shuttle's design to accomodate such an ability.

Still love those birds however! I'm glad I was alive to see the first all-in-one space plane/cargo ship ever created by humanity. I have a feeling it will be the last for a VERY VERY long time.

Seriously:

I truly don't believe that the market for space industry is viable unless you can bring product back down to earth. I don't mean retrieving and bringing down hardware, I mean actual manufactured product.

And the compromise in the shuttles design was essentially sealed in stone when Nixon killed the space station project and also cancelled skylab 2. It made the original smaller concept shuttle pointless as it had no place to go to.

@ Jonathan-2055273

If re-entry is the only thing that a space factory would need of a shuttle, why not just go a simpler rout and have some bare-bones, automated re-entry UAV's that could launch from standard rockets and dock with the station and delicately bring cargo back.

I don't think we need a super-complex manned spaceplane to do that. I imagine that an X37B-type of vehicle could just as easily accomplish the same mission more cheaply and frequently (albeit I'd like more carrying capacity than what the X37B has, but since longevity in space would not be the mission of a ferryboat, I bet more space could be allocated for cargo using a similar sized chasis).

Seriously,

because your cost would be similar for building the UAV's and a manned space craft as it would be for building the shuttle alone.

Your total cost would be similar.

I have done a rough set of numbers on this as I thought of that idea as well. It just didn't make that much of a difference in the big picture. What the idea of a separate vehicle did do however is allow the development of the components to be staged so you could develop the capsule first, then as you build your infrastructure, you develop the reentry vehicle. However, in my scenario, I was constructing the space station as well, and the cost of building the orbital navigation components increase the overall cost of this process because you needed to design and attach this 'OTV' component to any space station components you are launching. This actually made the costs of the separate vehicles higher, though as I said, separating the vehicles COULD still be more advantageous because it lets you break down the development.

@ Jonathan-2055273

I'd like to see your numbers and the source of your calculations. The production cost for an X-37b ferryboat compared to a shuttle (note, not the R&D since the X-37b itself is already tested and operational, just like the Shuttle's)

Also, the cost for launching an X-37 vs. the Shuttle. Note that one requires training a crew and supporting them in space while the other simply requires a ground crew to monitor operations. To be fair, you'll need to bundle all costs that are attached to launching either craft, including an allocation of the support crew.

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=16639

I haven't run the numbers myself, but I think that getting around the $1 billion/launch cost of the shuttle vs. the X-37b's is probably a pretty significant difference (X-37 costs are classified). Also, the X-37 can be launched from practically any launchpad in the world, while the Shuttle can only be launched from Kennedy (and perhaps Vandenberg).

In general, I think that a stripped down X-37b (i.e. one not designed as an OTV, but just a ferryboat for delicate-return shipments) would have both a significantly less expensive development cost, but also deployment by comparison to the Shuttle's

In any case, you say you have numbers, so please share ^_^

Seriously,

The specific cost of a 'dry' launch of the shuttle was quoted by Jeffrey Hoffman and confirmed by Leo Cohen in the first or second lecture that they gave at an MIT Systems engineering course in 2005 (I believe). The course is available from MIT Open Courseware as course number 16.885j Fall 2005. There are both video and audio formats for the lectures.

The point about the X37 is yes it is reusable, but it isn't flexible. (and nobody knows the mission cost of it either, that is classified). So it goes to my point of, reducing the capability of your vehicle so that you pay a price does not lower your cost, it just reduces your flexibility. So if all of a sudden because of the less capable vehicle, you just can't do as much, you don't actually get as much for your dollar spent. The ONLY vehicle that was ever in service that had the same throw rate as the shuttle (the mass that you can release into orbit) was the Titan IV. Guess how much that cost per pound? Same as the shuttle. SO reducing your capability is fine as long as you don't need that capability. If all you are doing is launching a satellite, I agree, that is a complete waste of money to do on the shuttle. Retrieving a satellite, christ, let em burn up, I don't care. I am thinking of the future, the capabilities that we will need to create an industry in space. The flexibility is what we need. And again, I don't care if it is the shuttle (well it is obvious that it won't be) or a similar vehicle or a completely unmanned vehicle. It is the capability that is needed. THat is ALL I am saying.

As far as my financial figures, we spent over 5 million to build our figures up doing the market studies, it is unfortunately private information that I can't share. But when we got the estimates (and yes they are projections because there is no real industry in space right now), and we started to actually talk to potential customers, we always ended up with the same question. How are we going to bring all this stuff back to sell. The X-37 can't do it, it isn't large enough. Once you talk about the capability, then you start talking about sizing, and when we did that, we came up with something that would have to be space shuttle sized. Once you get that size, you automatically disqualify a 'standard payload that can sit on any booster' vehicle. The economics just aren't there. And we based that on what we felt would be the amount of activity that would be large enough to create a self sustaining industry. The initial development obviously would take years to build up.

To bring product down from space, all you need is an aeroshell with a heat shield and a set of cargo parachutes. Simple, reliable, cheap. In most cases it doesn't even need to be pressurized. If you have space manufacturing, turning out simple product return capsules would be a trivial part of the program. Make them from lunar or asteroid materials. Once they land and are unloaded, they could be broken down for the refined metal they contain.

Every pound you don't have to haul up out of a gravity well is a big cost savings. That's why wings on a rocket are stupid. They are big and heavy. A heat shield can be small and light. Parachutes are light. Heat shields and chutes made in orbit are even better. They don't incur the huge cost of hauling them up out of the gravity well of the planet. They are even a way to return refined materials to Earth.

In my opinion, it's more akin to the migration of people and goods westward in early American history. It was good for our country to spread out and utilize the resources found in the new places. The gold rushes in parts of America made many American families extremely wealthy. The land rushes in the high plains allowed massive wealth to be made off of wheat (and also contributed to the dust bowl 30's).

Transporting huge volumes of people and cargo to Mars will inevitably have it's own pitfalls but there will also be a generation of wealth for the people willing to make the journey. At this point it may sound like science fiction, but I have no doubt that interplanetary migration will happen and the early pioneers stand to make massive profits but they will also face great dangers, just as the early pioneers here on Earth.

I too would love to go live on Mars. But we'll never get away from the idiots. Heck, most days there's an idiot staring back at me in the mirror. ;-P

Mars is overrated. If you love the Martian scenery, go live in AZ where it's warmer AND has a breathable atmosphere. Plus cactus candy is tasty and the people are friendly.

But if you still insist on going to Mars...please

...please

....STTTTAAAAART THE REAAAAAAACTOOOOOOOOOR

--Quato

If only 'twere that easy.

How hard is it to get to AZ for you?

Well, money is tight with the wedding coming up, but other than funding it's relatively easy to get there. My brother just rode thru there on a motorcycle road trip, said it was nice. Very different from the pacific northwest though. I'm used to a green landscape.

^_^

They are already working on a plasma rocket in Houston in a lab that was spun off of NASA research. I believe it is called VASMIR but not 100% sure on that, but the rockets potential is enormous. It wouldn't need the heavy load of rocket fuel and it can push the craft at higher speeds cutting any trip from mars down from years to months (or even sooner once perfected).

Yup, it's called a VASIMR engine.

There are a number of different types, and the cool part about it as a design concept is that it spews ions in a direction as opposed to exploding gasses, giving it longevity over initial power.

It beats rockets both in weight, reliability and maybe even safety as well, considering that the magnetic fields generated by the engine may help to shield a deep-spacecraft from dangerous radiation that a rocket alone does not.

VASMIR is designed for use after the vehicle is already in orbit, it can't get anything off the ground. The primary use of rockets is getting stuff into orbit. Traditional chemical rockets are used because they have the lifting power necessary to get stuff into orbit. The only use of electric or ion propulsion is for use after orbit is achieved. This would be for station-keeping or orbital transfer, which includes interplanetary missions, but this all assumes that the spacecraft is already in orbit.

seriously, the technical term is specific impulse which is a basic determination of overall efficiency of a rocket. The engines that are on the space shuttle (the SSME's) are probably the most efficient chemical propulsion engines that will every be built. (I believe only a specific tri-propellant engine can beat it, but that is only theory, and the waste product from that engine is about as toxic as you can get, much worse than the SRB's on the shuttle). However, the more efficient you get, it seems that the less thrust you get, so while each engine may have their place, the VASIMR isn't going to replace chemical rockets yet.

As far as the radiation shielding is concerned, that would have to be a pretty strong magnetic field.

@ Jonathan-2055273

...so while each engine may have their place, the VASIMR isn't going to replace chemical rockets yet.

Agreed, I had only read the above statement about VASIMR and didn't read the opening line about ion engines for liftoff into Earth orbit.

VASIMR is indeed only useful for space travel given the very low Newtons of force it generates, but that it can sustain that force for incredibly long durations, which far surpass chemical engines.

As far as the radiation shielding is concerned, that would have to be a pretty strong magnetic field.

I thought that a side-experiment of the latest module installed on the ISS was to see how a powerful magnetic field could be utilized to deflect certain types of harmful radiation.

Perhaps I got the two confused, but I thought that part of the advantages of an ion-drive was that it would create a magentic field that could also shield the crew from certain types of deep space radiation

I haven't seen that about the magnetic field, but as i said, it would have to be pretty strong, and still wouldn't protect against other types of radiation. I also suspect it would have to be in the front of the vehicle.

I personally would just like to think that the people who fly these missions are well aware of the particular risks and the implications of them. Not like there would be a shortage of candidate volunteers lol. I mean, if I could health wise, I would be first in line lol. They wouldn't have to worry about genetic defects being replicated in any offspring as I am sterile now (the first time I got cancer, the chemo sterilized me as well as destroying one of my kidney's)

You do realize the Plasma system that is used in VASIMR is powered by a Nuclear Reactor on some configurations? Others can use solar. I believe the "shortcomings" you mention are overstated.

Ys, FairTaxFan, I do realize that VASMR is powered by a nuclear reactor, but the need to discard heat from such a reactor adds a horrendous amount of weight, making it far, far less efficient than just using a niclear thermal rocket engine. See the panel discussion at the upcoming Mars Society Conference in Texas or the earlier debate held in Seattle several months ago completely discrediting the VASIMR farce. Even with respect to other conventional ion propulsion systems it has so far proven far less efficient.

@FairTax ... There is a vast difference between NTP (nuclear thermal propulsion) and NEP (nuclear electrical propulsion). NTP provides high thrusts AND a high Isp. NEP, OTOH, has high Isp but a lower thrust.

In order to get VASIMR useful for a fast trip, it needs a LIGHTWEIGHT nuclear reactor, otherwise it won't have the oomph to get a high enuff thrust to shorten a trip to Mars.

Pratt & Whitney has already done preliminary designs on the TRITON which is based on NERVA. At this particular point in time, we could have a fast NTP ship up and running sooner than a workable VASIMR based ship.

lobo:

Considering that most of the people that worked on NERVA are dead, and that the equipment is still locked up in containment due to radioactive contamination, your time estimates are probably not feasible.

Plus, I don't think we've got the intestinal fortitude to launch a nuclear rocket into orbit. Imagine the ecological catastrophy of a midair detonation over the launch pad. Also, how would you safely abort the launch after liftoff? Too many what-if's

That's not to say that nuclear rockets aren't amazing, but I think that we'll have better use of nuclear reactors if we built them in space for use on deep-space exploration rather than breaking into escape velocity from Earth. Plus, nuclear powered ion-drives will have a lot more use than chemical propulsion at that point, so again, nuclear rockets are too dangerous and not necessary.

A nuclear rocket would only be able to create a nuclear reaction, not a detonation. The bigger risk would be the spread of radioactive material, not of a nuclear detonation.

@ Jonathan-2055273

Agreed, I wasn't referring to a fission reaction when I mentioned detonation, but simply what happens when there is a catastrophic failure during launch and the rocket fuel explodes. Also, what about aborting the launch of an errant rocket? In either case, the typical and easiest method for aborting a launch after liftoff is to detonate the rocket. Having nuclear material onboard will require a much more complex abort procedure than what is currently utilized...and plays on the wrong side of Murphy's Law.

Lastly, what about the logistics? How do we safely deorbit a nuclear rocket after it's successfully taken its craft out of the atmosphere? How much more aweful would the Columbia/Challenger disasters have been if the Shuttle were outfitted with a nuclear rocket?

The materials in a reactor like Topaz are largely benign (Topaz is a russian power reactor that was designed not as propulsion but for power, though it could power an ion engine). They aren't all that hazardous until you turn the reactor on for the first time.

I am not sure about NERVA, as I never had enough clearance to look at that data.

The intent is that you never deorbit a reactor once it has been turned on. You send it into the sun after you have finished with it.

The idea of nuclear material on a payload isn't new though. Most deep space probes have plutonium on them in the RTG generators.

Jonathan-2055273

The idea of nuclear material on a payload isn't new though. Most deep space probes have plutonium on them in the RTG generators.

Very true, but compared to NERVA, the amount of plutonium is FAAAAAR lower than the nuclear material used for a nuclear rocket.

The only bits that I know about the nuclear rocket program are based on Wikipedia and History Channel, so we'll just get that out of the way before I make any assertions to details on the program.

I think the design is fascinating, but I'd still be fearful of a midair detonation spreading nuclear material for 100's of miles around the launch site just to use something slightly more efficient than a standard chemical rocket.

Oh yeah, I agree, there are many issues to be worked out. The materials in question for the Topaz are also very different than the NERVA. And just as a reference, the facility that the NERVA rocket was tested at, it still has Chernobyl type restrictions attached to it due to the radioactivity levels.

Unless we can find a source of fuel off the planet, I don't think it is all that serious an option. And I am generally very pro nuclear. I just don't really see the balance between the two sides (risk/benefit) being balanced enough to justify it. (NERVA for example would have the same operational duration limitations of a chemical rocket motor).

Very much agreed!

I think nuclear is going to serve us very well once we are in orbit and beyond.

It'd be nice if we could find a convenient source of fissile material close by in outer space that could be tapped to construct reactors in orbit. But I bet that we could probably launch fissile material into orbit in well armored containers and specialized rockets designed to jetison their payload should the launch abort or have an error.

We do this now on small scales with various exploration craft, but I'm thinking of a reactor that is similar in output to something used on an aircraft carrier.

With either option, you have the problem of handling the material outside the 'clean room' environment, the launch option to transfer the bundles and the refining option, to mine, process, and transfer the bundles. The problem gets even worse when you talk about a 'liquid' fuel such as what was used on the 'topaz' reactor that I mentioned previously.

Oh, darn. I'd really like a very strong, compact and reliable powersource in space. Solar arrays are very cumbersome.

Seriously.

Actually the Topaz would have been great for that. Very compact reactor. Forget the power rating, but it used a thermionic power converter ( not a steam turbine like nuclear reactors here on earth) so it ended up being quite compact.

Funny thing with the Topaz, a demonstrator (not a live reactor) was brought to the US for a show in Arizona, and when they tried to return it back to the soviet union, the NRC said no, that technology can't be exported to the soviet union, even though it came from there). ITAR regulations are actually very similar, it treats foreign weapons as US weapons once they touch US soil.

I wish it were that easy. But in anything government (and hence taxpayer) funded you'll need the politicians to vote on funding. It's our system, it's the way it has to work if it's taxpayer funded. Public-private partnerships are a little better, but you're still going to have politicians in on it. The only way to remove the politicians is to be filthy stinkin' rich and do it yourself from some country that will let you do things uninhibited (i.e. not the U.S.).

I think it's still possible to almost remove the politicians from the equation, or at least divide their influence over the agency at least by 10 by simply giving NASA a longer leash similar to how DARPA operates.

I think politicians should be able to set over-arching goals for NASA, but I don't think that they should be allowed to kill NASA projects on a whim. I also think that NASA should have a powerful say on adopting new projects sponsored by one administration or another.

For example, Constellation was a disaster from the word Go for many reasons, but the most important one was that it was never EVER given enough funding to even meet its first couple of milestones! It was like Medicare Part-D in SPAAAAACE!

I agree Seriously. It's just so frustrating seeing all the programs and projects killed by politicians. If it was so worth while to start it should be finished even if it goes over budget. If anyone thinks big goals happen on the cheap they are delusional. Exploration in person is hard dangerous work and that needs to be taking into account. The early pioneers of the space program knew that, and I feel today's astronauts are also well aware of the risk, yet here they are lined up to get on board a ship with "1.5% chance of dying".

I would have loved for Constellation to have panned out as planned. A moon base. Could you imagine? How cool would that be. I'm not old enough to have looked at the Moon and said "hey, there are people up there". I think that would greatly change the mindset of many young Americans.

@ mob_barley

Totally Agreed!

I think a moon-base would be excellent! But considering how ridiculously expensive it is just to maintain life on the ISS, I'm not terribly optimistic about the costs for a moon-base.

We'd have to put NASA's budget back at 4% of US GDP like it was during Apollo to consider such a goal even feasible!

Also, I don't see a lot of value in a moon base at the moment. While it would be a great opportunity to test out extended duration habitation of another celestial body (which is pivotal work to practice getting off this rock), a moonbase's day-to-day operation doesn't have all that much for missions.

Perhaps putting a linear accelerator on the moon to launch stuff more easily WAAAAAAY out into space has quite a bit of value, but most of the value would come if the stuff was actually assembled on the Moon rather than shipped from Earth.

seriously:

the lunar soil is about 50% oxygen, so there is that part that doesn't need to be constantly brought to a moon base. Operationally most of it can be automated, and parts can be built fairy easily that will allow moon base habitants to grow their own food, reducing transportation costs etc..

It can be done, you just need to build flexible systems. Constellation was not such a system.

@ Jonathan-2055273

Agreed all-around. But there will still be logistical factors that cannot be avoided that must be dealt with by getting materials back from Earth.

So far, we've not been able to create a small but robustly closed system to support humans within. We've got some great tests that have been conducted since the 1970's, but those were still built on Earth and weren't designed with the same redundancies that would need to be put in place if it were on the Moon. The tests so far that I know of were just to see if we could design a closed system for humans to live in.

you don't need it completely closed, but you just need to take the 100% resupply criteria, and bring that down to say 30% (you bring 30% of your supplies).

This doesn't even have to be done in one shot, it can be done gradually as the 'population' increases. Creating the infrastructure to make a base 70% self sufficient for 3 people for example would be pointless, but doing so for a base for say 200 people would not be. You aren't just going to send 200 people to the moon, it would be gradual. So creating the self sufficiency should probably be gradual as well.

The biggest problem with the biosphere's is that they tried to become 100% self sufficient. Too big of a step. What they should have done is have multiple sequential projects, trying to say start at 50% and increase it from project to project.

@ Jonathan-2055273

200 people?! I love that you dream big! I tremble at the thought of what kind of infrastructure and support would be necessary to handle a 70% efficient lunar base of 200 people.

Perhaps you've been consulting Dr. Evil?

how do you know that I am not dr evil.

The point there was that the cost of making a small base self sufficient isn't worth the cost. It is only when the population starts to increase significantly that the costs start to equal out. (think that economics price/profit curve). The cost of self sufficiency for a base of say 5 people would cost far more than just shipping all the supplies using an automated system. However as you increase the number of people, the equation starts to equal itself out, at which point, becoming self sufficient in many factors (say oxygen being a first one) starts to make the cost statement make sense.

The 100% self sufficiency argument doesn't even make sense in the bigger sense, because the hope is that the moon base provides product which will justify the cost of sending supplies there in the first place. Reducing the cost of that supply mission by increasing self sufficiency where appropriate just lowers that cost at which the base itself becomes justifiable (and feasible).

Goes back to work on my alan parsons project.

^_^

seriously,

In all seriousness though, I think big because I am thinking about what it would take to make the industry sustainable. In the case of the moon base, there really isn't a point for a business to send a few people to work on a lunar base. There would be justification for the government to do it however, but the discussions now are about moving that to the private sector, so the discussion about what is economic needs to play a part in the discussion.

This is also in part my 'question' about SpaceX and the other vendors. They are all treating it as though they are just going to do the same thing as NASA and make money from it, but they can't, because NASA was just never set up to make money; I would be pissed off if the were but that is a different story.

Jonathan-2055273

In all seriousness though, I think big because I am thinking about what it would take to make the industry sustainable. In the case of the moon base, there really isn't a point for a business to send a few people to work on a lunar base.

This is true, the Moon is a Harsh Mistress ^_^

...There would be justification for the government to do it however, but the discussions now are about moving that to the private sector, so the discussion about what is economic needs to play a part in the discussion.

This is also in part my 'question' about SpaceX and the other vendors. They are all treating it as though they are just going to do the same thing as NASA and make money from it, but they can't, because NASA was just never set up to make money; I would be pissed off if the were but that is a different story.

Agreed, I have the same concerns about privatizing a high-speed rail project. The primary benefits that come from its use (just like the interstate highway, national water and power systems), is the economic utility, or more plainly, the economic benefit (e.g. efficiencies, savings, etc.) to individuals and businesses from the existence of such infrastructure. The only entity that's able to monetize economic utility is the government through the collection of taxes. After all, what are taxes other than revenues gleaned from economic prosperity. To try and recoup the costs in a fee-for-service method would go counter to the economic utility, and both be incapable of recouping the costs, nor in offering a competitive enough price to justify individuals and businesses to utilize it.

There is almost no supporting infrastructure in space, and the private sector has (obviously) not delved deeply into reaping the rewards that will come from activities like space mining and space-fabrication primarily because they can't justify such a risky, massive R&D expenditure like that to their shareholders, nor do the big players want to pave the way for their competitors into the same arena! Heck, we can't get AT&T and Verizon to light up dark fiber taxpayers paid them to lay down all across the Mid West because God forbid that they run the last mile to a few areas that might open them up to competition or, *gasp* lower their bandwidth prices for already slow service!

I'm sure if groups like Northrop and Boeing thought that they could replace OPEC and be the leading producers and shippers of Helium3, they would already be working towards it.

Well I don't think that high speed rail is all that viable in the US. Not because I don't support it, but because the US infrastructure is already developed and it is structured towards the car. The US just isn't built for HSR. Not to mention that it is essentially just importing foreign technology making any economic investment advantages minimal in my mind. Now europe has a different infrastructure, and it isn't anywhere near as auto centered as the US is. So it works there. Same thing in Japan, and China can pretty much do whatever it wants.

As far as Helium-3, that is often brought up. My response is, if you can prove that it works, I am pretty sure that there will be many entities fighting to get the chance to 'mine' it off the moon. Right now, there is no guarantee that it works. Enough Helium3 can be made here on earth to prove that the concept works without having to go to the moon to mine it. That is where I make the point about economic justification. Right now, it is going to take some really brave entrepreneurs, and some really bright ideas, to make it work.

Do you know if ITER is ever going to try using Helium3? Or is that not even the right type of fusion reactor design to make use of such an substance?

Not sure, I stopped looking into it a few years ago because I have hit my lifetime radiation limit for working in the industry (near a reactor) according to Canadian, US and UK regulations.

Oy!

Agreed, there would be no commercial space industry unless either there was some profit to be made, or they were heavily subsidized by the government, or both. Manned spaceflight to low earth orbit is just now becoming marginally profitable; flying "huge volumes of people and cargo to Mars" is just a pipe dream at this point, unless the government funds it to the hilt. But, I would still love to see it happen in my lifetime.

If there is money to be made the government will fund it to the hilt and they will utilize any means necessary to get their hands on that profit. The only entities more greedy than the big corporations are nations. It's really why governments and big corporations work so well together.

In any case, I have to disagree about that analysis of private space companies staying at a point of profitability. Companies that do that generally lose market share and go under. They need to diversify and continue adding to their portfolio. If they become profitable they WILL find a way to become MORE profitable. It's the way of big business.

Good thoughts node4. I would add that Orion is capable of all the things Dragon is. That's why they set on the new name Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. Orion-lite (the proposed "life boat" for the ISS) and Boeing's CST-100 will only be for LEO. But the MPCV will be usable in much the same way as Musk describes his Dragon Capsule. All these new capsule will have the crew escape feature and if I'm not mistaken that is part of the powered landing architecture, but don't quote me on that part.

Musk makes another good point about NASA being very good at the "one-off" items. The folks at NASA do excellent work at the purpose-built items and I believe they would do well to incorporate more of a "building-blocks" style for certain missions. Not all missions are alike, of course, but you could mass produce, for example, orbital mapping surveyors (couldn't you?). Just a thought. In my opinion we should have orbiters around every planet (and many dwarf planets) and many moons.

@mob_barley; I had seen that earlier Orion versions had propulsion landing systems but it was dropped from the baseline for funding and schedule reasons. With their decision to go with the escape tower, it looked like they had largely abandoned it for the future; would be significant if that was reconsidered for MPCV - I hadn't seen a commitment to it so far; thanks for pointing that out.

It will be extremely interesting to see how MPCV and CST-100 differentiate themselves from Dragon. There are opinions that there is only enough business for 1 capsule in that class, but I don't think any of the players are necessarily ready to get out of the market or to stay out for very long. I think if you're an aerospace company, eventually you have to do space. At some point, EADS and even COMAC will be heard from. As always, the market may be slow to develop, but once it gets going, it will be something to see.

A key thing I hope to see NASA emphasize is non-chemical propulsion and in-situ resource (life-support, habitat, and propulsion) production. They have had some great projects that have been starved for resources due to the budgets consumed by shuttle & station operations. I sincerely hope they don't get in that same bind because of SLS.

I look forward to the day when NASA lets a statement of work out for placing their methane production plant on Mars, which will be used to fuel a sample return mission - maybe even using an Xcor engine. It's going to be a while, but these kinds of things are possible (sooner) when you can reuse commercial services and products.

It's true that spaceX's Falcon Heavy will be the biggest. But it'll be a temporary tag. NASA's planned SLS will be capable of lifting at least 70 metric tons with upgrades (additional SRB's I believe?) allowing for up to around 130 metric tons (to LEO). What all this means is that human beings will have the capability of launching bigger payloads, more rapidly. That bodes well for many of the more far-reaching plans that are being floated. It's an exciting time. I wish SpaceX much success, and I hope NASA's budget woes don't prevent them from achieving their goals.

Big Daddy

The Falcon Heavy is ok if you aren't actually going to use it all that often. The strapping together of boosters seriously increases your logistical issues during ground support (just ask Boeing with the Delta Heavy about that one). And to be honest with you, SpaceX hasn't had enough flight experience to know if the prices that they have set are even in line with their costs. I suspect that price is going to go up big time once they start launching rockets, but oddly enough, I don't see them actually getting any customers other than NASA.

And just a quick look at the payload difference between the Falcon 9 and the Falcon 9 Heavy, the math in my head doesn't work out. (I would have to see their complete mission profile to verify that though).

From a marketing point of view, Proton, if it were launched from Florida, would still have a higher throw mass than Falcon X Heavy. The difference now is because the Proton is launched from a much higher inclination.

In general. OOOOOOOooooh Boy would I love it if we could launch massive tons of material into LEO. Getting that price down per kg will do wonders for space exploration and human advancement!

Stan:

It is because Zubrin's numbers are pure fantasy. He keeps quoting those numbers because he doesn't factor in risk mitigation (his plan as stated is EXTREMELY risky) and he also uses numbers from his original 1980's report. He states those numbers because he hopes that he can get a bite from congress to pay for it, then invest the money and say oops, cost overrun, I need more.

Anytime someone disputes his numbers, he just goes into a rant, and screams that everyone is against him. More accurately right now, he just doesn't put himself in positions where he would be challenged.

Great interview indeed. I believe it's just the tip of the iceberg, I seem to recall hearing about how Alan will be sharing a slew of these articles with us. Looking forward to it.

Alan, great to hear that Sierra Nevada and Boeing are in the hopper. I'd like to hear more about XCOR and Bigelow if that's possible. Always enjoy your articles, thanks.

Indeed, Bigelow's inflatables would be great to hear more about in terms of their current progress. Looking forward to whatever you have coming down the pipeline Alan!