How to Fix FY2011
So I guess I should give my solution. I’ve been thinking about this for a while, and trying to come up with something more than, “build a fucking rocket!” but that sums up my position nicely.
Maybe first I should ask the question, “What’s the goal of NASA?” For a long time the goal was to find uses for the shuttle. This extended to the point of flying four space shuttle missions to service it, instead of simply replacing it for less cost. Then the ISS came and the shuttle found its goal. And with the ISS completed, there’s no reason for the shuttle. Problem is there’s no reason for the ISS either.
*gasp* did I just say that? Yes! The ISS, like the Ares I has been able to accomplish very few of its stated goals. Worst of all, it’s obsolete.
Lets look at the history of space stations. Skylab was our first. It was launched with a single launch, weighed 76mT and was 361m^3 of space. Mir was heavier but about the same size and even though it took 7 launches over 10 years to get to that point. The ISS is big. I don’t want to trivialize that point, but it’s only 2.3 times the size of Skylab. It’s taken over 11 years to get where we are now and there’s still two modules left to add. Three Skylabs put together would have given us a larger station in only three launches, probably only taken 2 years.
“How would we have launched those three giant modules”, you ask? Aside from reinventing the Saturn V used to launch Skylab, we could have used the Shuttle C. That’s basically a giant shell with engines placed where the space shuttle goes on the shuttle stack. The Shuttle C has 50% more payload capacity than needed to launch Skylab.
Oops, that’s not assuming we use commercially available technology. The BA330 is being built RIGHT NOW by a commercial company. It has 330m^3 of space, but weighs only 23mT. In one Shuttle C launch, we could replace the entire ISS.
Not that I’m necessarily advocating building a shuttle C type system, but I certainly think it should be an option. I’m not totally sure what the design of the rocket should be. My opinion is probably “anything other than the Ares I”, for reasons I could go into, but to be brief I’ll just say, it’s just too small. Most other designs have wonderful features, but most require some form of magic. Like space elevators, or Skylon, or Propellant depots. I don’t care about inventing new tech to do something we can do with existing tech. If the tech to do it comes along, great. Until then, we need to build a fucking rocket.
There are plenty of rockets that can take humans to orbit, no need to reinvent those. Just choose one, maybe the smallest, and design your capsule to take your people up in it. Doesn’t have to be big or fancy, just has to keep 4-6 people alive long enough to get them to LEO. And since it’s the smaller rocket, it has all the other rockets available to compete for the job of taking it up.
Rocket to take humans to LEO are good and all, but we need somewhere to go. Whether we’re going to Mars, an asteroid, the moon, or building a space station, they all require putting mass in orbit. Lots of it. In fact, every problem associated with spaceflight can be solved with more mass. So, how much mass do we need our rockets to be able to launch? As much as possible. We can ALWAYS find a use for extra payload capacity. So how do you set the upper bound of the size of the rocket? Right now it’s set by two things, the size of the VAB, and the ability to transport it to the launch site. This means 113m tall, 20m wide, and an unfueled weight of 1,300mT.
After that, I’m open to ideas. The design becomes a question of how much of existing hardware you can use. Stuff like, not redesigning the launch pads, or the crawlers, or the barges that take the shuttle’s external tanks across the Gulf of Mexico. A Kero-Lox first stage engine is certainly an option, but the question with that is do we have one we still know how to build? I see no reason to continue using the SRBs. This WILL mean we’re reinventing the Saturn V, but physics hasn’t changed in the last 50 years so why should our designs?
The shuttle costs $60-120million to launch 24.4mT to LEO. The Saturn V and the Shuttle C both launch 5 times that much, so as long as they cost less than $300 million it’s all good.
Sure there would be technical challenges, but that is where innovation comes from. Give them a goal and execute a plan, don’t just sit them in a room and tell them to invent something. What do you think costs more, the materials to build something, or paying people to stand around for 10 years while it’s being built? Remember my example of the costs of maintaining the VAB while we wait for a new HLV to be built?
I admit NASA will probably need a larger budget. First thing to do though is get rid of the overhead. NASA is a crappy inefficient bureaucracy. Get someone in there whose salary is tied to getting the project out on time, and is willing to fire people. Next, you get ride of things NASA has no business funding. As a general rule, if DARPA can do it, NASA shouldn’t. I saw some kinda estimate somewhere that 20% of the shuttle’s costs are completely unrelated to shuttle operations. No one really knows exactly what NASA is spending their money on. Get them back focused on human exploration. Robotic missions are nice, but keep it in perspective.
Now, it’s story time. There once were two government agencies. One started its life with $14billion in funding, and grew into $80billion. The other had $4billion and grew into $19billion over the same period of time. One is NASA, the other is the Department of Education. Do you think the Department of Education has done 4 times as much good as NASA over the last 30 years? Since the Department of education was established in 1980, has the quality of public education in America gotten better or worse? Does “special education” require more federal funding than manned space flight?
The question has NEVER been a matter of money. If we wanted to do it, we would find the money.
Maybe first I should ask the question, “What’s the goal of NASA?” For a long time the goal was to find uses for the shuttle. This extended to the point of flying four space shuttle missions to service it, instead of simply replacing it for less cost. Then the ISS came and the shuttle found its goal. And with the ISS completed, there’s no reason for the shuttle. Problem is there’s no reason for the ISS either.
*gasp* did I just say that? Yes! The ISS, like the Ares I has been able to accomplish very few of its stated goals. Worst of all, it’s obsolete.
Lets look at the history of space stations. Skylab was our first. It was launched with a single launch, weighed 76mT and was 361m^3 of space. Mir was heavier but about the same size and even though it took 7 launches over 10 years to get to that point. The ISS is big. I don’t want to trivialize that point, but it’s only 2.3 times the size of Skylab. It’s taken over 11 years to get where we are now and there’s still two modules left to add. Three Skylabs put together would have given us a larger station in only three launches, probably only taken 2 years.
“How would we have launched those three giant modules”, you ask? Aside from reinventing the Saturn V used to launch Skylab, we could have used the Shuttle C. That’s basically a giant shell with engines placed where the space shuttle goes on the shuttle stack. The Shuttle C has 50% more payload capacity than needed to launch Skylab.
Oops, that’s not assuming we use commercially available technology. The BA330 is being built RIGHT NOW by a commercial company. It has 330m^3 of space, but weighs only 23mT. In one Shuttle C launch, we could replace the entire ISS.
Not that I’m necessarily advocating building a shuttle C type system, but I certainly think it should be an option. I’m not totally sure what the design of the rocket should be. My opinion is probably “anything other than the Ares I”, for reasons I could go into, but to be brief I’ll just say, it’s just too small. Most other designs have wonderful features, but most require some form of magic. Like space elevators, or Skylon, or Propellant depots. I don’t care about inventing new tech to do something we can do with existing tech. If the tech to do it comes along, great. Until then, we need to build a fucking rocket.
There are plenty of rockets that can take humans to orbit, no need to reinvent those. Just choose one, maybe the smallest, and design your capsule to take your people up in it. Doesn’t have to be big or fancy, just has to keep 4-6 people alive long enough to get them to LEO. And since it’s the smaller rocket, it has all the other rockets available to compete for the job of taking it up.
Rocket to take humans to LEO are good and all, but we need somewhere to go. Whether we’re going to Mars, an asteroid, the moon, or building a space station, they all require putting mass in orbit. Lots of it. In fact, every problem associated with spaceflight can be solved with more mass. So, how much mass do we need our rockets to be able to launch? As much as possible. We can ALWAYS find a use for extra payload capacity. So how do you set the upper bound of the size of the rocket? Right now it’s set by two things, the size of the VAB, and the ability to transport it to the launch site. This means 113m tall, 20m wide, and an unfueled weight of 1,300mT.
After that, I’m open to ideas. The design becomes a question of how much of existing hardware you can use. Stuff like, not redesigning the launch pads, or the crawlers, or the barges that take the shuttle’s external tanks across the Gulf of Mexico. A Kero-Lox first stage engine is certainly an option, but the question with that is do we have one we still know how to build? I see no reason to continue using the SRBs. This WILL mean we’re reinventing the Saturn V, but physics hasn’t changed in the last 50 years so why should our designs?
The shuttle costs $60-120million to launch 24.4mT to LEO. The Saturn V and the Shuttle C both launch 5 times that much, so as long as they cost less than $300 million it’s all good.
Sure there would be technical challenges, but that is where innovation comes from. Give them a goal and execute a plan, don’t just sit them in a room and tell them to invent something. What do you think costs more, the materials to build something, or paying people to stand around for 10 years while it’s being built? Remember my example of the costs of maintaining the VAB while we wait for a new HLV to be built?
I admit NASA will probably need a larger budget. First thing to do though is get rid of the overhead. NASA is a crappy inefficient bureaucracy. Get someone in there whose salary is tied to getting the project out on time, and is willing to fire people. Next, you get ride of things NASA has no business funding. As a general rule, if DARPA can do it, NASA shouldn’t. I saw some kinda estimate somewhere that 20% of the shuttle’s costs are completely unrelated to shuttle operations. No one really knows exactly what NASA is spending their money on. Get them back focused on human exploration. Robotic missions are nice, but keep it in perspective.
Now, it’s story time. There once were two government agencies. One started its life with $14billion in funding, and grew into $80billion. The other had $4billion and grew into $19billion over the same period of time. One is NASA, the other is the Department of Education. Do you think the Department of Education has done 4 times as much good as NASA over the last 30 years? Since the Department of education was established in 1980, has the quality of public education in America gotten better or worse? Does “special education” require more federal funding than manned space flight?
The question has NEVER been a matter of money. If we wanted to do it, we would find the money.