Building a True Spaceship

> One problem is that the commercial space industry is where NASA was in the early sixties.

NASA isn't in a much better position. When is the last time they (or anyone) built and flew a new manned spacecraft? (I think China and Burt Rutan were the most recent efforts to put humans into space, but before those...?)

> I am really nervous about the next SpaceX flight.

So am I. After all, it took several flights to get the much simpler Falcon 1 right. I recently read that Musk says his company can survive 4 consecutive failures of Falcon 9. I hope we don't get close to that.

Dr. Aldrin is definitely on the right track.

We did preliminary design studies using the station modules and cupola looking at planetary and lunar missions, both fly-by and surface operations. This was back during SEI around 1989-90. We looked at both zero-g and partial-g configurations and looked at how we might need to modify the station architecture.

Some of the hardware is available now, built but not used on ISS. The modular architecture means that much of the assembly/integration could take place in orbit, just as we've been doing with ISS. You do the assembly at the ISS, test it until you're comfortable that everything is working well, and then depart from ISS on a test flight.

Think of this like the X-planes of the 1950s. Build up a configuration at the ISS. Fly it out to ever increasing distances and velocities and then returning to ISS for re-outfitting.

The modules, if based on the US Hab shell or MPLM, would require Shuttle launch.

Most likely you would want two pressurized compartments with redundant critical systems for going any distance.

These are a couple of the more widely known renderings that came out of that study but there are some design study books detailing the systems configuration, resources, and sketches of other details, including the interior of the 'planetary cruiser' version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RoverB.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ISS_Lunar_Outpost_Detail.jpg

The cost of going to the Moon would be dwarfed by the cost of attempting to go to Mars. A Mars First program would make the cost of the Constellation program look like chump change!

Marcel F. Williams

> One problem is that the commercial space industry is where NASA was in the early sixties.

How is that a problem? The commercial industry is at the point where it can build Gemini-style manned capsules to get to LEO, so that NASA can focus its effort and funds on sustainable beyond-LEO exploration.

GK, many thanks for your beautiful renderings. Do you have any more of a module as a free flyer?
-Frank

We did a couple of color renderings of the interior of the modules in a partial G configuration, and one or two of the interior of the Mars lander, but nothing more of the exterior.

I will try to find the studies and post them. Hopefully everything was archived with the SEI records, or we sent everything to the NASA photolab and they probably have NASA photo numbers in the same series as the three on Wikipedia. Some of the study, aside from the quantitative data and Man-Systems standards for lunar and planetary missions was pencil sketches and line drawings.

The key to keep in mind, as Dr. Aldrin identifies, is that from the outset we hammered home the ideas of 'modularity', 're-configurability', and maintainability in our original requirements for the station, and from the outset we were doing that with the idea that the modules and systems racks could be used for future programs. Work Package 1 at MSFC, which became the Boeing contract, and WP2 at JSC (McDonnell Douglas) fully adopted the requirements and the module, (and node) and rack configurations. The cupola bid and built was slightly different than the one we designed. The module length was shortened, but we knew at the time of the SEB they would have to be.

Going to MARS is so far off, and would cost a ton of money. What is needed is interim steps, BEO, that build on each previous step, adding both technical momentum and political momentum.

Exactly what the interim step are , I don't know. But if Bolden/Obama are being truthful that MARS is the ultimate destination, and that there will be interim steps along the way, then from the ashes of Constellation there would indeed be a marvelous HSF program.

We should have an exploration module type system at some point but isnt one point of the R&D program to test out new radiation shielding for beyond LEO? Seems like anything you cobble together now will require taking money from other programs and not be particularly capable.

This doesn't address the problem of likely delays in the commercial spacecraft where we could be grounded for 10 years.

Folks:

One aspect of a "true spacecraft" that lives in space that most people seem to be missing is the coming home part. To do a lunar fly-by or lunar insertion does not take much delta-v (change of velocity). Coming back home does. The Apollo spacecraft picked up a lot of speed falling into our deep gravity well returning from the moon.

For a manned spaceship to live in space we will have to figure out how to get back to earth orbit with a reasonable expenditure of fuel in a reasonable amount of time.

Aerobraking comes to mind. A group called Transformational Space Corporation came up with an idea for just such a craft a few years ago. There spacecraft would use aerobraking to bleed off the energy from that long fall into Earths gravity well. They also proposed NOT to carry an Earth re-entry vehicle with them. They would meet their lifeboat in Earth orbit (or dock with the space station).

That is a radical idea compared to anything NASA has come up with. All of the NASA Mars mission concepts I've seen have them carrying their Earth re-entry vehicle with them the whole way, for up to three years, where it could be damaged on the way or just wear out. Not to mention the extra useless mass.

So there you have it. We have to learn a new technique to have a true spacecraft that can leave Earth orbit and return there. We also have to separate our spacecraft from our means to get back to Terra Firma, both figuratively and literally.

Only then will we have a true spacecraft and be considered a "space faring civilization".

Doable? Sure. It'll just take a change of mind-set, determination and bravery.

tinker

"This doesn't address the problem of likely delays in the commercial spacecraft where we could be grounded for 10 years."

Buzz's does - because he keep flying the shuttle. Not sure where all the money comes from, tho...

Nice try Buzz...but the weak link: the shuttle program is dead and it's not coming back.

so they will not use Space Shuttle anymore if they Built a "True Spaceship"?

@akear "Most people have an uneasy feeling before any SpaceX test flight."

And you can bet your bottom dollar that NASA will be all over Space X after the first flight of the Falcon wanting to know every detail of the results. And God forbid there is some failure; if that happens I would expect NASA to launch a full blown mis hap investigation board, which will take months to determine root cause......

Part of the reason for Buzz's articles is to foster a national conversation about the space program. In that, I think he has been successful.
-Frank

> @madscientist Not sure where all the money comes from, tho...

This is my biggest problem with Buzz's arguments. Lots of things are possible if there is more money.

> @Kevin Paul so they will not use Space Shuttle anymore if they Built a "True Spaceship"?

"The Shuttle" is almost certainly dead, but I do have hopes that the Dream Chaser or X-37 develop into something useful. Has there been any recent news on DARPA's work with the X-37?

nice to see Buzz give a nod in the direction of SD-HLV(I'll avoid the 'D' word!). But he didn't mention tying in VASIMIR(preferably powered by ROTG's!) on his XM. This module could actually become a BEO Shuttle transiting between Earth orbit, the Moon and near Planets. Design it properly for connectivity with propulsion modules and other XM's, and this could be used for Planetary orbital bases.
Alternatively add 3 more Shuttle flights and leave 'em in Space docked to ISS. Add VASIMIR engines - on Pods, if removing the SSME's is too much, and use them instead. Nice big Payload bay for fuel, spare ROTGS, etc and a flight to Europa,Enceladus or Titan becomes possible without massive investment in new Spacecraft/Launchers. Plenty of possibilities without the expense of reinventing the wheel "time after time"...

I think the best bet is to continue Shuttle.

Decide now that the new heavy lift will be based on Shuttle.

The new payloads will include the CAM, already well along in development for ISS, and already announced in the new Bolden-Obama plan, and Buzz's XM, together with additional ISS logistics support missions.

NASA people seem to be holding their tongues. I think that with Sen Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Jeff Bingham, Buzz Aldrin, John Young and some others, well known and well respected, they could communicate this plan and get the President's attention.

People will need to speak up in order to turn around the six year old decision, but it certainly is the only thing that makes sense for the time being.

> I think the best bet is to continue Shuttle.
Decide now that the new heavy lift will be based on Shuttle.

I know Griffin considered the side-mounted option before settling on the inline solution. Was the primary issue that it has a smaller mass capacity to LEO?

Would orbital fuel depots negate some of the side-mounted option's disadvantages? That is, if you could launch your vehicle dry and then gas-and-go in space, would the side-mounted option look more appealing?

And how much cheaper (or would it be?) to build a side-mounted option where you used the same SRBs and same external tank as opposed to the Ares V?

Any thoughts?

Re "Has there been any recent news on DARPA's work with the X-37?"--CadetOne

This is the latest "news" I know of, dated Feb. 25, 2010:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av012/100225x37arrival/

The wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 shows a last update of Mar. 3, 2010. It It It gives a launch date of Apr. 20, 2010.

Note: According to the spaceflightnow.com news article above, it has a cargo bay measuring seven feet long by four feet "in diamenter", meaning it's cylindrical; those dimensions would give it only 88 cu. ft. Although one might consider that "cockpit space", (perhaps even for two), that's like regressing to the Gemini era. it definitely begs scaling up for humans,

Zat's no vood!

Tinker has it exactly right. Any practical architecture for BEO exploration requires spacecraft that do not reenter and land. We need to leverage the experience gained with ISS and the resources of the station itself to take the next step. Hauling everything to orbit for each mission and taking our reentry vehicle on long voyages is the way of the past, not the future.

With regard to the Shuttle, if you're concerned about the gap than extending the program is the best solution. However, I don't think the gap is the end of the world. However much we end up paying the Russians it'll still be cheaper than flying the shuttle. The money would be better spent to accelerate development of new vehicles.

> Tinker has it exactly right. Any practical architecture for BEO exploration requires spacecraft that do not reenter and land.

Is there a practical difference between taking the reentry vehicle out and back, and taking the aero-braking vehicle out and back? (Or an awful lot of delta-V)

Buzz is right. We should go to Mars. Here's how:

http://dma.ing.uniroma1.it/users/bruno/Petro.prn.pdf

This is really exciting and helps put some meat on the bones!

Dave,
check this out...
http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VASIMR

do you think if they Built a True Spaceship,it will be as fast as Light Years?

Shuttle's can't remain in space for extended periods of time. That's why they can't be used as lifeboats at the station and we rely on Soyuz to provide that function. That's why any talk of extending Shuttle to close the gap is wasted money because your still going to have to pay the Russian's to fly two Soyuz per increment to provide lifeboat capability.

So no point in trying to make them into some BEO craft. You would have to redesign them so you might as well start from scratch.

I sure hope the commercial crew will have the requirement to provide 6 months on orbit time because commercial crew is going to need to perform the lifeboat function as well.

CAM module for ISS was canceled over 5 years ago so not sure what you think is well along in development for ISS.

I look at SpaceX as the farm team to NASA.

How do you look at the X-37/Atlas team?

There (sic) spacecraft would use aerobraking to bleed off the energy from that long fall into Earths gravity well.

Aerobraking from escape velocity would require a stout thermal protection system. Aerobraking would also require aerodynamic control surfaces. Do you plan to put fins on a capsule or ISS module? Or do you have a space tug in mind?

They also proposed NOT to carry an Earth re-entry vehicle with them.

The heat shielding needed for aerobraking implies re-entry capability also.

They would meet their lifeboat in Earth orbit (or dock with the space station).

But what if the rendezvous attempt failed? Wouldn't you want the crew vehicle to have an Earth atmosphere re-entry capability as a backup, emergency flight mode? I sure would.

That's why any talk of extending Shuttle to close the gap is wasted money because your (sic) still going to have to pay the Russian's to fly two Soyuz per increment to provide lifeboat capability.

The Shuttle system might be life-extended to carry an X-38 crew return vehicle/lifeboat to the ISS, with passengers ascending as Shuttle pax.

'However much we end up paying the Russians it'll still be cheaper than flying the shuttle. The money would be better spent to accelerate development of new vehicles.'

Good point. Much as I think the Shuttle is Really Cool, it's fairly expensive and has inherent risks (side-mount). And re-starting production of consumable parts now would be non-trivial.

"CAM module for ISS was canceled over 5 years ago so not sure what you think is well along in development for ISS."

Yes it was, though a lot of work was done towards its development before it was cancelled. The new Obama-Bolden plan calls for restarting partial-g research and most of the physiologists I know say that an artificial G craft will be required for long duration/planetary missions, so under the new plan its time to get CAM going again.

The delta-v for orbital capture is significantly less than for entry and landing. Options include decelerating using electric (actually nuclear-electric) propulsion, fixed low mass aerobraking decelerators or inflatable aerobraking decelerators.

Aerobraking does not require fins or other aerodynamic devices.

As much as I love the Shuttle and would like to see them keep flying, it doesn't really make sense so long as we can get the needed spares on orbit before the vehicle is retired. If we had decided to keep flying a few years ago then it would have been workable but at this point it's just silly (unless the gap is your biggest concern).

I took a class taught by GK last fall on space habitat design and he brought this discussion to my attention. Our semester project was to come up with a high-level conceptual design of a manned Mars transit vehicle. GK indicated to me that there was some interest here in what such a vehicle might look like.

I apologize for the simplicity of the images, but they were intended just to illustrate the configuration for the purposes of my paper. They are, for better or worse, conceptual artwork at an approximate scale, not a full engineering design.

However, under GK's advisement, I am further refining my paper on Mars exploration vehicle design considerations and have submitted it for presentation at IAC 2010 through their Young Professional program.

http://phalanx.i8.com/images/mtv/exploration1.JPG
http://phalanx.i8.com/images/mtv/exploration2.jpg

The configuration of this exploration vehicle is pretty straightforward. Propulsion and power come from a "dusty" fission fragment reactor/rocket. The habitation module is derived from the TransHab concept and is mated to a Node-derived transfer module with a cupola, an airlock, and two common berthing mechanisms for commercial crew and cargo transfer.

A short forward truss is used to deploy up to four MSL-sized robot landers with telepresence capability. It could also be used for carrying excursion craft, based on lunar free-flyer designs, to visit the Martian moons.

USA disagrees with much of your assessment but what they claim may be biased due to the business they'd stand to gain by a Shuttle continuation.