How would you develop a space program?

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by crazyewok

 

I've heard NERVA was cancelled due to 2 reasons.

1. its a nuclear reactor (a live one) in space, and there could be some legality issues with it as some nations would take it as a violation of various international agreements + dangers of nuclear waste material being released if the rocket were to explode.

2. funding it would be a ticket to only more expensive missions into space. (congress was tired of the political and economic expense of the apollo program(it was a fraction of the national budget, but it was really show-y and thus was destined for the chopping block), they did not want a repeat with some fantastical manned-mission to mars)

the space treaty does not forbid the peaceful use of nuclear reactors in space. just weapons. the real problem of NERVA and similar engines (there were more than one successful design) was that in lift off if would be spewing nuclear bits out with the exhaust and if there was an accident during ascent it would be even worse. the primary killer of nuclear engines were environmental political and budgetary not treaty violation. we had not developed more advanced designs that retain all of the nuclear bits inside the engine; though several closed cycle systems were proposed and studied; the engineering was far more complex and not feasible during the NERVA study era.

as for Orion and Daedalus designs; there was a in addition to the environmental issues the proliferation and security issues with developing cheap and plentiful mini-nuclear bombs needed for those designs. however we now know how to do it without the proliferation threat. we can make an orion or daedalus style nuclear rocket using deuterium pellets instead of functional bombs.

How would I develop a Space Program?

Use Kerbals! These guys are fearless!

originally posted by: stumason
How would I develop a Space Program?

Use Kerbals! These guys are fearless!

I love that game!

I have a number of the more I depth technical mods for it too.

a reply to: crazyewok

I use Mechjeb, makes flying the things a damned site easier! Only just managed to get a lander on the Mun the other week though and I've had the game over a year - needless to say, it toppled over upon landing and my Kerbals are stuck, but they got there!

a reply to: crazyewok

I would have 6 space programs

1 program : Primary goal is to deliver cheap efficient service provider to supply commercial sector demands, e.g communication sattelites using known and proven reliable rocket technology

2nd program : Primary goal is to develop robotic missions within Solar system using primarily known proven rocket technology.

3 program : Primary goal is for International collaboration projects, which can draw on support from programs 1 2 and 3. Such as international space station or sending a robot vehicle to Mars for example.

4th program : Primary goal is to develop military solutions which principals are founded on known and proven engineering and science from programs 1 and 2.

5th program : Primary goal is to develop military solutions which are principals are founded on engineering and science principals not covered in from program 4.

6th program : Primary goal is to cover any other requirements not covered by programs 1 to 5. Things like Eco dome on Mars kind of stuff.

I would overlay the whole thing with a matrix management structure. Horizontal lines of management criss cross all programs, their job is mainly to manage and monitor the movement of any information released between programs. Sometimes it will be seen advantage to allow knowledge to move from one program to another, though it would be rare if not at all this would occur between program 5 and the other programs.

The Vertical lines of management manage the ordinary running of the business. How much money is allocated to each program is a separate question for debate.

The 'Mars Direct' mission design first proposed by NASA engineers Robert Zubrin and David Baker is very interesting.

Zubrin has no shortage of enthusiasm - that's for sure.


A documentary about the proposal -

I should of made a point in my post above that how an individual program is designed has to be done within the constraints of its budget and resources. To be in a position to so this requires firstly the formulating at the high level the overall budget of all space programs/projects combined. From that individual programs can bid for their piece of the budget pie based on the business cases cost benefit argument presented. A Manned mission to Mars, when weighing cost and risk up may not and never be justifiable unless there is a way of mitigating the risks by some means to reduce their impact on the whole space program if fails.

I guess I am being ignored



The first problem

Political

Second Problem

Personnel

Third Problem

Funding

Fourth Problem

Technology

Fifth

Supplies



Now none of the above are particualrly in this order

Lets start with the first one

Political
Big money is involved a lot of it
Political interference
(look at Ebola czar then picture your project)

Solutions

The next issue


Personnel
None of you have outlined what you need in what positions
or even what positions

Support -
Ground control
Technicians
Janitors
Security

Director
their staff

Safety team
Inspectors

Scientist
Construction team

Team members
(what specialties are on your missions)


Third
Funding
Tax dollars
Grants
Private funding
hybrid

Fourth
Technology

you have all mostly focused on this

Basic issues
Escape velocity
Crew protection
food
air
water
medicine
spare parts (where do you store the flat tires)

then go to
Reusability (cost factor and time)


And last
the supplies themselves
as listed above but

Storage unit
carry with (are you going to carry a spare engine)


Any solution you have needs to be tested against historical evidence
Our sailing ages are the best example

I am curious most on the personnel since none of you have set this
Are we going with military what?

a reply to: crazyewok

Invest all your resources in discovering and eventually creating a new technological platform (superior to everything you have listed) on which you would base your space program. Note: wormholes come to mind, but i know nothing about science.

It is the most efficient method though... which is, ironically, why humans dont operate this way....

a reply to: combatmaster

what program would you design to attract this talent

The kind who would initially (if you base it in space) be stuck there forever

originally posted by: ripcontrol
a reply to: combatmaster

what program would you design to attract this talent

The kind who would initially (if you base it in space) be stuck there forever

Im sorry... but i misunderstand your question.

a reply to: combatmaster

My apologies

You referred to creating brand new technologies

I assumed you were going to be using Engineers, scientist, and technicians
My misstep..

I should have worded it better

How you you attract the talent you need for the research and development program?

what type of talent are you going to be looking for to man the Researchers into the technology


The last bit was with the understanding you may need labs in space and the scientist would be stuck there for the rest of their life if they stay to long.

a reply to: ripcontrol

you may need labs in space and the scientist would be stuck there for the rest of their life if they stay to long.

that all depends upon technical capability.

How you you attract the talent you need for the research and development program? what type of talent are you going to be looking for to man the Researchers into the technology

The same way they do today, i would simply utilize their skill and collective brainpower to work together towards a defined goal.... they did it with manhattan project.... humans can achieve wonderous things if we all put our minds to it.

believe it or not NERVA though it worked, was not our best nuclear Thermal Rocket design. Thats was probaably DUMBO. DUMBO managed a thrust weight ratio greater than one which means it would be capable of reaching space from the surface of earth; but I think i remember reading that Dumbo kept the nuclear goop in the reactor separated from the exhaust medium so it did not produce radioactive environmental pollution. In short it would be more acceptable for use in the earth's atmosphere.

Excerpt on the DUMBO engine's demise at project rho:

This was a competing design to NERVA. It was shelved political decision that, (in order to cut costs on the atomic rocket projects) required both projects to use an already designed NEVRA engine nozzle. Unfortunately, said nozzle was not compatible with the DUMBO active cooling needs. Dumbo does, however, have a far superior mass flow to the NERVA, and thus a far superior thrust. Dumbo actually had a thrust to weight ratio greater than one. NASA still shelved DUMBO because [a] NERVA used off the shelf components and they knew there was no way in heck that they could get permission for nuclear lift-off rocket so who cares if T/W < 0? You can read more about Dumbo in this document.

web.archive.org...://www.dunnspace.com/00339489.pdf

the above link is the govt report on Dumbo.

Bit of a bump here but I've been thinking about this lately. The further you go down the list the more speculative the technology becomes. As a rough guess I would assume somewhere around 65 years to achieve all 12 points. Current technology can take us up through point 7a, with 7b being possible with carbon nanotubes.

1. Extend the service life of the ISS for another 20 years.

2. Develop a new reusable launch vehicle to bring down the cost of missions with a planned 25 year lifespan.

3. Launch and assemble a new cargo ship at the ISS designed to move people and goods through space only.

4. Use this new vehicle to transport people and goods to the L1 Lagrange point.

5. Build a long term space station at L1. The near term goal of this station would be to serve as a docking point for a lunar space elevator and the long term goal would be to serve as a staging area for a trip to Mars. This station would have a very long planned life span. Include artificial gravity in the design through rotation so that it could be manned by the same crew for longer periods of time.

6. Construct a lunar space elevator to develop the technology.

7a. Build a permanent moon base, to develop space colonization technologies.
7b. Construct an Earth based space elevator (probably several elevators over time).

8. Decommission the ISS as a launching point, and route all traffic through the space elevators and shuttle.

9. Build a small fleet of shuttles designed to bring people between the space station and Mars orbit. While building these shuttles send unmanned equipment satellites into Mars orbit to create a Mars space station.

10. Send the manned shuttles to Mars and construct a space station using the available materials.

11. Send the materials to build a Mars based space elevator.

12. Begin sending people to the surface of Mars.

From this point you could repeat the same steps to send people to several moons as long as you sent proper satellites to get the needed information ahead of time.