The Next Five Big NASA Failures

Space Daily ^ | November 15, 2004 | Jeffrey Bell

[cogitator]

Liberally excerpted due to length; I recommend clicking the article link and reading the whole dismal thing.

"VSE" stands for "Vision for Space Exploration".

Telling excerpts:

International Space Station: "There is no plan to handle NASA's share of the huge up-cargo and down-cargo demands of the finished ISS, except for a thin wedge labled "ISS transportation" in the famous VSE budget chart. There is no plan for a US cargo vehicle.

There is no initiative to do away with the Iran Non-Proliferation Act which forbids NASA to purchase Progress launches from Russia. There is no plan to purchase ATV cargo flights from Europe, or to purchase HTV flights from Japan.

Even worse, there is no plan for crew exchange without Shuttle. The "finished" ISS will require that a total of 12 crewpersons be launched and landed each year. NASA is responsible for the non-Russian share of this.

The INPA forbids the purchase of Soyuz flights; Europe and Japan have no manned vehicles to purchase; and the Chinese Shenzhou program is withering away with an apparent flight rate of less than 0.5/yr.

The announced US policy for the future of ISS amounts to this: NASA will finish assembling the ISS at vast further expense in American money (and possibly dead American astronauts), then dump the whole white elephant on the international partners, who will be totally unable to meet its crew exchange and "junk exchange" needs.

This plan is so stupid that even Congressmen are objecting to it. For some months there has been a series of increasingly less polite requests from Congress that NASA present some kind of plan for adequate logistical support of the finished ISS. But no plan has been produced - much less a budget.

.........

Hubble Robot Repair Mission: "For $2200M, one could build several more Hubbles and launch them on expendable boosters. It just doesn't make any sense to develop a whole new space robot technology for this one repair job. There is no chance that Congress will pony up this amount of money to save Hubble. Anybody working on this mission is wasting their time."

Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter:: "Of course, JIMO is the mission which was used to justify the hugely expensive Prometheus program for improved nuclear power in space.

But that was back in the pre-VSE environment when it was officially forbidden for NASA to work on or even plan for any post-ISS manned programs. Clearly, the Prometheus 100kw space reactor plant is far more necessary as an auxiliary power source for manned ships and bases than it is as propulsion power for unmanned probes."

Mars Sample Return: "For a while it seemed that Earth was only getting young volcanic Mars rocks, probably from the Tharsis region. But then ALH 84001 was belatedly recognised as a chunk of Mars' ancient highland crust.

The bogus controversy over "fossils" in this meteorite has tended to overshadow the large amount of real science that was extracted from it.

The most important programmatic implication of ALH 84001 was that if we collected enough Mars meteorites, we might get samples of most of the significant geological units on Mars.

Instead of spending billions on MSR, it might be more cost-effective to expand the existing collection program in Antartica, or offer big cash prizes to rockhounds for genuine Mars rocks in their collections.

Concluding paragraphs: "This is a pretty scary list of disasters. The combined impact of these failures and cancellations in the next year or so could be disastrous, on top of the Columbia, OSP, and Genesis fiascos. Possibly NASA needs an "Associate Administrator for Early Warning".

His job would be akin to that of the old court jester - to speak the unspeakable truths that loyal courtiers dare not mention, early enough that these doomed projects could be quietly put out of their misery before they generate too much bad publicity.

[tjg]

Would you mind expanding on your post a bit? What's crossranging? And how does Ti promote a more forgiving reentry profile?

[hopespringseternal]

Crossrange is basicallly maneuverability on reentry, the ability to change your landing after you have started reentry. To get maximum crossrange, you have to fly through reentry rather than "fall." But "flying" through reentry requires a more or less aerodynamic shape and greatly increases thermal loads, things get a lot hotter.

Titanium has a much higher melting point than aluminum, and retain its strength at much higher temperatures.

The shuttle uses a reentry profile that causes very high thermal loads plus it has an airframe constructed of material (aluminum) that can't withstand high temperatures at all. So it's thermal protection has to be not only very, very high performance, it can't tolerate any breaks or flaws.

[KevinDavis]

Let me get some facts out:

1. This guy has been anti-human in space or just anti Bush. I'm going for the later.
2. Daniel Goldin is not totally at fault. From what I have heard is that Lori Garver was the main force behind this cheaper and faster crap (radio can you confirm it).
3. As for NASA itself, yes the agency has problems, however, out all government agencies (excluding the military) there is a double standard. It seems that NASA has to get it right all of the time. To me that is wrong. Yes NASA must be accountable, but compared to the trillions we spent on welfare, I think that NASA gave us the best bang for our buck.

[boris]

"I wonder what it would cost to interest Burt Rutan in servicing the ISS?"

Rutan talks big. What delta-vee did "Spaceship One" deliver? He needs >30,000 ft/sec to make it into orbit; and a bit more to change to the ISS' silly plane.

Guess what? He spent more winning $10 million than the prize was worth. Let me see him make it to orbit--repeatedly--with useful cargo--for less than $2000 per pound, or into GEO/Lunar transit for less than $10000 per pound. He will find it somewhat difficult. Rubber and laughing gas will not do it.

--Boris

[Carry_Okie]

Guess what? He spent more winning $10 million than the prize was worth.

Virtually all startups work out that way. It's a pittance compared to one Shuttle launch.

Let me see him make it to orbit--repeatedly--with useful cargo--for less than $2000 per pound, or into GEO/Lunar transit for less than $10000 per pound. He will find it somewhat difficult. Rubber and laughing gas will not do it.

As it is now, "useful cargo" would be astronauts with minimal provisions, seeing as NASA can't do it. He may well be able to handle that. Rubber and laughing gas may be enough. The key is to make the vehicle lighter while still surviving re-entry from LEO. He has a good way to do that by virtue of his innovative re-entry scheme (see Post 57 above for a good description). I think he's on the right track.

[Phsstpok]

Where does one start?

International Space Station: "There is no plan to handle NASA's share of the huge up-cargo and down-cargo demands of the finished ISS, except for a thin wedge labeled "ISS transportation" in the famous VSE budget chart. There is no plan for a US cargo vehicle.

The remaining STS still handles “down-cargo” quite nicely (it’s only real reason for existing) until full retirement.  In the meantime we have lot’s of unexplored alternatives, based on work done elsewhere, such as aero braking, new ablative materials, etc.

There is no initiative to do away with the Iran Non-Proliferation Act which forbids NASA to purchase Progress launches from Russia. There is no plan to purchase ATV cargo flights from Europe, or to purchase HTV flights from Japan.

A simple proposal in Congress could handle this.  A Presidential Finding might suffice.  That’s not the issue.  What would buying Progress launches from Russia, or ATV from Europe and HTV from Japan, do to our domestic capabilities?

Even worse, there is no plan for crew exchange without Shuttle. The "finished" ISS will require that a total of 12 crewpersons be launched and landed each year. NASA is responsible for the non-Russian share of this.

Sounds like incentive to me.  Get your act together without expecting NASA to always eat the cost and bail out our “partners.”

The INPA forbids the purchase of Soyuz flights; Europe and Japan have no manned vehicles to purchase; and the Chinese Shenzhou program is withering away with an apparent flight rate of less than 0.5/yr.

Yeah?  So?

The announced US policy for the future of ISS amounts to this: NASA will finish assembling the ISS at vast further expense in American money (and possibly dead American astronauts), then dump the whole white elephant on the international partners, who will be totally unable to meet its crew exchange and "junk exchange" needs.

Yeah?  So? (aside from the snide “dead American astronauts comment).

This plan is so stupid that even Congressmen are objecting to it. For some months there has been a series of increasingly less polite requests from Congress that NASA present some kind of plan for adequate logistical support of the finished ISS. But no plan has been produced - much less a budget.

Big question: why?

Hubble Robot Repair Mission: "For $2200M, one could build several more Hubbles and launch them on expendable boosters. It just doesn't make any sense to develop a whole new space robot technology for this one repair job. There is no chance that Congress will pony up this amount of money to save Hubble. Anybody working on this mission is wasting their time."

I do believe that the idea is that this capability would have application beyond “this one repair job.”

Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter:: "Of course, JIMO is the mission which was used to justify the hugely expensive Prometheus program for improved nuclear power in space.

Yeah?  So?

But that was back in the pre-VSE environment when it was officially forbidden for NASA to work on or even plan for any post-ISS manned programs. Clearly, the Prometheus 100kw space reactor plant is far more necessary as an auxiliary power source for manned ships and bases than it is as propulsion power for unmanned probes."

OK, so there are uses for some of this technology other than the “stated” justification?  OK.  Just so we have that established.

Mars Sample Return: "For a while it seemed that Earth was only getting young volcanic Mars rocks, probably from the Tharsis region. But then ALH 84001 was belatedly recognised as a chunk of Mars' ancient highland crust.

The bogus controversy over "fossils" in this meteorite has tended to overshadow the large amount of real science that was extracted from it.

The most important programmatic implication of ALH 84001 was that if we collected enough Mars meteorites, we might get samples of most of the significant geological units on Mars.

Instead of spending billions on MSR, it might be more cost-effective to expand the existing collection program in Antartica, or offer big cash prizes to rockhounds for genuine Mars rocks in their collections.

OK, let me get this straight, we abandon actually going to the other planets because we assume that everything we need to know has been randomly blasted off of the surface of Mars and conveniently fell to Earth as a meteorite and is still in pristine condition, somewhere, if only we’d look for them?  Question: have we found Judge Crater, yet?

Concluding paragraphs: "This is a pretty scary list of disasters. The combined impact of these failures and cancellations in the next year or so could be disastrous, on top of the Columbia, OSP, and Genesis fiascos. Possibly NASA needs an "Associate Administrator for Early Warning".

His job would be akin to that of the old court jester - to speak the unspeakable truths that loyal courtiers dare not mention, early enough that these doomed projects could be quietly put out of their misery before they generate too much bad publicity.

This is simply snide and is 100% non-productive agitprop.

[af_vet_rr]

The sad thing is: some missions are really working well. The Mars Rovers, both of the working NASA Mars orbiters, Cassini, Stardust (if they can get the parachute to deploy when it gets back!) as space missions, and TRMM, Terra, Aqua, Aura in the earth-observing sector -- are all successful. Why waste money on boondoggles?

All of the missions you mention have very specific goals and are designed and executed by small, dedicated teams, and thus they will work well. Much as Rutan's group during the X-Prize, or Lockheed's SkunkWorks..

Once you get into the realm of the Shuttle, the ISS, etc., you go from small teams to very large planning and design groups that include many non-engineers *cough* Congress *cough* and before you know it, mission creep has shot the budget to hell and your behind by a decade. The Space Shuttle and ISS (and by proxy Congress) have done more to hurt our nation's space program than half a dozen Challenger disasters.

[tjg]

Thanks for your reply.

I understnd the structural and thermal superioriy of Ti over Al, but I thought the temperatures required to compromise the structural integrity of Al would cook anyone inside the vehicle anyway, rendering the subject moot.

[RadioAstronomer]

Nice post.

[RadioAstronomer]

The key is to make the vehicle lighter

However, vehicle weight does not translate into a slower orbital velocity. This velocity must be bled off somehow to achieve a controlled reentry.

[hopespringseternal]

I understnd the structural and thermal superioriy of Ti over Al, but I thought the temperatures required to compromise the structural integrity of Al would cook anyone inside the vehicle anyway, rendering the subject moot.

It is a lot smaller problem to keep certain parts (passenger cabin, etc.) cool than to keep the entire structure cool. Remember that you only have a few minutes of high temps.

The whole thing gets a lot simpler if you minimize reentry heating along with maximizing the heat tolerance of the structure. Shuttle is exactly the opposite case: maximum reentry heating and minimal tolerance for structural heating. This mandated both fragile refractory heat shielding and an intolerance for breaks in that heat protection. This is a big part of the reason the shuttle is so expensive. The heat shielding must be rigorously inspected and there is a lot of it.

[RadioAstronomer]

It is a lot smaller problem to keep certain parts (passenger cabin, etc.) cool than to keep the entire structure cool.

You do need to be careful you do not exceed the thermal integrity of your more exposed areas however.

[Carry_Okie]

However, vehicle weight does not translate into a slower orbital velocity.

Lighter weight increases the effectiveness of the minute drag forces Rutan's design employs.

[RadioAstronomer]

Lighter weight increases the effectiveness of the minute drag forces Rutan's design employs.

Cool! (pun intended LOL)

Since I am NOT a thermal or reentry expert, I will quickly get over my head here. I need to read more on this.

[SittinYonder]

bttt

[Carry_Okie]

rate of tangential deceleration = (the tangential component of the coefficient of drag / mass) * tangential velocity,

Rutan can manipulate both terms inside the parentheses.

The genius of his system is to prolong the total time he can apply those drag forces to exclusively the tangential component by the creative application of lift. That allows him to approach the total velocity we know his current design can handle while still in the fringes of space.

[tjg]

I see. Thanks again.

[XBob]

62 - "The shuttle uses a reentry profile that causes very high thermal loads plus it has an airframe constructed of material (aluminum) that can't withstand high temperatures at all. So it's thermal protection has to be not only very, very high performance, it can't tolerate any breaks or flaws."

Good summary. How is it you didn't participate in our long shuttle thread, started by BonesMccoy?

[JATO]

Dan Goldin is the #1 responsible @-hole for NASA's problems. He wouldn't fight for NASA, but he would explode at his staff for using out-dated letterhead on memos belated "THAT'S THE TRUTH" bump. Mismanagement is steadily killing everything technical in the US.

[SunkenCiv]

High Maintenance
by Dawn Stover
Popular Science
December 2004

In January the crew traced a "pressure decay," or air leak, to a double-paned window in the Destiny lab. To prevent fogging, a flexible hose allows air trapped between the panes to escape overboard. The hose, which was probably damaged by astronauts who used it as a handhold while looking out the window, has been replaced and covered with a box.

Hmm. Maybe this would make a good topic of its own?