MAIN ARTICLE: Space spells Jobs.
Part Two of the 'Americans in Space' series "Space spells Jobs". Part One focused on In Space Manufacturing & Medical Research. Today's focus is IN SPACE ships and fuel stations.
Poll Results: Low turnout for yesterday's poll on what should happen to NASA Chief Mike Griffin. Scroll down to see the latest opinion poll results.
Star Trek: In the News - J.J. Abrams talks about the challenges making the new Star Trek Movie.
Yesterday's Interesting Comments: "But this hour is perfect for imagining what someone is doing with a chainsaw after midnight. ::cue horror film music::" - mijita
Today's Poll: "What area of Commerical Space Development should America promote first?"
This is the second poll in our series on building America's Space Infrastructure. Scroll down to take the poll.
E veryone has their own pet "I wish Obama would do this", then everyone would live happily ever after suggestion. This isn't a personal wish, but ... There is a "Golden Key" Opportunity for America, if President Elect Obama is bold enough to grab it. This is a suggestion for an infrastructure development project for an American 21st Century.
It will not solve everything, as there are a lot of problems on the ground that are going to be very expensive to fix. This is more about the future and how to develop and increase one of the few areas of the American economy that can't be outsourced.
This article will be describing an alternative mission for NASA. Rather than pursue an Earth's moon landing on Luna, and possible Mars mission in the future, America should instead start commercially developing accessible space that is closer to home. This will be a basic outline of three ship types and the three fuel stations that will resupply & service them.
(Ship Type One, image courtesy of David Robinson)
"The problem with these studies is not their economic methodology nor is it their analysis of historical launch events. The problem lies with the summary demand curves that include projections of very low cost access to space. The quick interpretation is clear—build new launch vehicle systems that are "cheap" and that can fly safely many times per year and the price will come down while the mass to orbit will grow rapidly." - LAUNCH VEHICLES: AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE - pg.8 (PDF 43 pages)
I agree, and in my opinion, current launch costs are not even a factor to be worried about. It is simply the CURRENT cost of doing business until the demand curves actually move. With simple "pop & drop" systems (Soyuz, Falcon 9 + Dragon crew capsule) America can put a LOT more people in space to be based there long term (3-9 months) so commercial cargo launch services can expand.
"The hard reality is that the underlying assumptions fly in the face of historical trends. Private investments in future systems occur only when identifiable markets are clearly evident. Other assumptions also have to be overcome. Launches need favorable weather conditions. Technical glitches are frequent in these complex systems. Environmental risks also have to be dealt with. Legal and regulatory hurdles can be problematic. None of these are "show-stoppers" but they all begin to erode the reality of the assumptions of these studies. Finally the biggest obstacle is the ability to develop new technology that is robust, reliable, and significantly less expensive than the propulsion systems that are now in use. Despite all the projections, this has not yet occurred, nor is it clearly on the horizon." - LAUNCH VEHICLES: AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE - pg.8 (PDF 43 pages)
A pertinent question to be asking is: Who can afford to use space?
Governments
Large Corporations
Wealthy individuals
Then the question becomes, HOW can we get MORE government, corporate and individuals based in space and create the "identifiable markets" that private investment needs to see first.
The more actual people we can get into space, not for a joy ride to orbit,
But to stay and be based in space, the more cargo and equipment launches will have to be made.
Launching a robot or satellite that is, by design, NEVER going to need human hands placed on it after it's launched, is not the way to increase the flight rate. With satellite systems getting smaller and lasting ever longer the demand, over time, will lessen as less satellite launches will be needed.
That is why suborbital space tourism will not work to increase orbital flight rates but may in the long term lead to orbital passenger travel.
GOVERNMENT:
For an example, the space shuttle was supposed to have seven shuttles flying over 40 times per year. What if those same ships were built today, but instead of operating as an earth to Low Earth Orbit and return vehicle they instead were designed as IN SPACE ships, that once launched into LEO never returned to earth.
If they were crewed with six astronauts and each tour of duty lasted 6 months NASA would need to buy commercial launches for 28 launches of a three passenger capsule to put the 84 crewmen needed to operate the ships and commercial launches needed to put 1,013,040 pounds or 506 tons of basic cargo into space that the crew would need. (based on NASA's 67 pounds per day needed to maintain a person in space) If the average deliverable cargo per launch is ten tons (Jules Verne ) you would need 50 cargo launches.
78 total commercial launches would be needed instead of the 40 government launches planned by NASA. If the average crew tour length was only three months, these numbers would increase to 106 launches. There is roughly about 60 - 80 launches a year for all mission types combined. (PDF 60 pages, Pg.6 )
It is clear, if we want NASA to increase commercial launches there is only one way to do it. NASA must get out of the people launching business and INTO the business of designing actual Spaceships and operating them IN space.
Call on President Elect Obama and NASA to build these 12 ships and 3 Fuel Stations over the next 24 years:
6 LEO2GEO Vehicles, 6 crew based on a 3 month tour 144 crew per year. Based in LEO and one LEO Fuel Station. 3 NASA ships, 3 commercial tankers for transporting fuel to GEO Fuel Station.
4 LPV's Lagrange Point Vehicles, 8 crew based on a 6 month tour 64 crew per year. Based in GEO and one GEO Fuel Station. 2 NASA ships, 2 commercial tankers for transporting fuel to Lagrange Point Fuel Station.
2 FTP's Fly to Point Vehicles. 10 crew based on a 9 month tour 20 crew per year. Based at Lagrange Point L1 or L2 and one L1 or L2 Fuel Station.
Ship Type Two & Three, image courtesy of David Robinson)
Now you have 228 astronauts that are SPACE BASED per year and will need closer to 250 commercial cargo launches per year. This represents four to five times the current number of launches. If we truly want to increase the flight rate we need to have NASA build ships that are space based and need to be crewed.
In the next 24 years of the vision, from 2010 - 2034 we will have 2 lunar launches per year (8 crew total) from 2020 - 2025 then a permanent lunar base from 2025 till 2035 leading to a possible mars trip in the 2030-2035 time frame. ( NASA does not mention a date for Mars; it is briefly mentioned in the VSE)
The International Space Station (ISS) will host 1-3 Americans until 2016 with a possible extension until 2020.
Using best case 6 astronauts per year from 2010-2020 60 astronauts will need about 70 cargo launches over 10 years or about 7 per year.
Seven launches to the ISS and two lunar launches per year are not going to change anything.
Even when you stretch NASA's vision out 25 years, you do not see ANYTHING that will radically change the flight rate of commercial launchers. Not compared to the 250 cargo launches needed PER YEAR if NASA switched to SPACE BASED ships rather than launching the all in one shot that the Ares I and Ares V represent. The Ares V should be built, but for launching IN SPACE ship and fuel station components and not for launching trips to the Moon or Mars.
Think about this, under the current plans in 2025, 17 YEARS from now, America will not have one to three people on the space station because it will be gone. But we will have four on the moon. 56 years after the first moon landing, where we had 3 people in space, we will have increased it to maybe four people. That is quite an accomplishment.
A corporation may not have the funding or 'will' to build an Ares V, but they do have the funding to build components that could be launched by an Ares V. One way America could help to contribute is to give Ares V launches to companies wanting to be a part of the commercial fuel station. It could be considered Government supplied equipment.
(Bigelow Aerospace - BA 330)
CORPORATE:
Cargo launches to Fuel Supply Station. Current launch systems.
Fuel launches to Fuel Supply Station. SpaceX - Falcon 9 heavy
Satellite repair and service.
Equipment launches. Ares V and Current launch systems.
Space Tourism. SpaceX - Dragon
Space Habitats. Bigelow Aerospace
INDIVIDUALS:
Space tourists.
This is the end of the first article on these ships and fuel stations. There will be a couple more coming up where more will be discussed on where they are based, benefits, the range they can travel and more. Stay in touch as all the space issues get discussed.
I want to give a special thanks to David Robinson for providing the exceptional artwork for the three ships. These images do not represent any final version or the actual ships that would be built. They do give the reader an idea on what I am referring to when I use the ship type’s names.
POLL RESULTS:
Lower turnout then normal and mistakes on writing up the poll gave mixed results. It still would be safe to say most DKOS members would like to see President Elect Obama replace NASA Chief Michael Griffin.
50% combined for seeing him leave.
10% combined for seeing him stay.With forty percent expressing no opinion.
STAR TREK: In the News.
"J.J. Abrams is a man on a mission. And unlike Captain Kirk, Abrams doesn't have five years to do it ... his film opens in less than five months.
So how does the "Lost" creator assemble a sprawling sci-fi epic that's accessible to mainstream audiences, while also navigating the dangerous waters of a rabid existing fanbase? According to him, you do it by looking to the past, namely the academy days of a younger and equally rebellious James Tiberius Kirk (played by relative newcomer Chris Pine) and his pre-Enterprise crew." - MTV-NEWS
YESTERDAY'S COMMENTS:
"Ares is interesting - I'd much prefer a competitive fly-off. It would be expensive, but the downstream benefits could be huge. And because the price is so high, we might just come out of it with two or more viable launchers for commercial and government use. The One Big Program model is a recipe for ... well, if not disaster, then at least bloated budgets, missed timelines, and the like.
Of course, given the expense and the behind the scenes dealing that goes on, our recent history with competitive government bidding is a bit murky. From the M-16 replacement to the JSF to the Air Force tanker fiasco, it's not exactly a string of success stories.
Off topic, what the hell is CNN thinking in getting rid of their space division and their aerospace correspondent?
Really off topic, why is someone using a chainsaw in my neighborhood after midnight?" - Socratic
"Griffin "serves at the pleasure of the President" . . . and never seemed to tire of saying so. It's been clear that OMB has been calling the shots on what NASA is allowed to do. Watching the NASA Administrator tie himself in verbal knots to defend unrealistic budgets has been horrifying. Congress passed fairly reasonable authorizing legislation in 2005, yet Griffin was required to prepare and loyally defend two budget requests inconsistent with that legislation. He wasn't even allowed to ask for enough money to repair the damage from Katrina!
The VSE was sold to Congress and the taxpayers as pay-as-you-go. Instead it has been the cuckoo chick in the nest. (Classic bait n' switch with Congress.) The Bush policy seems to have been to use the VSE as a way to starve everything else NASA is supposed to do. Griffin has been loyal to that policy. His loyalty to Bushco double-talk should be rewarded appropriately. Few NASA Administrators have stayed on through a change of Presidential administrations. Griffin hasn't shown he deserves to be one of the exceptions. NASA needs a fresh start." - Econaut
TODAY'S POLL:
This is the third space development poll; unfortunately this is the third version so the numbers from previous polls will not mesh with this poll 100%.