The thread for space cadets!

I've been hearing lately that the US congress is considering designating the entire friggin moon as a national landmark or preserve just to protect the Apollo landing sites. Probably overblown, but I'm too lazy to look it up, so any truth to that?

The only thing I've heard they were looking at preserving the landing sites as historical monuments. Which I can understand, I wouldn't want to see my history pillaged and sold on eBay either.

The whole Moon? I doubt it. But concerning this, we really need some international treaty to regulate the use, exploitation, and settlement of the bodies in the Solar System. We want something to promote settlement, but there must be some restrictions dictated by the need to preserve potential native life (such as on Mars) and the need to balance personal property claims with competing claims.

I've seen a scheme which would basically incentivize colonization of the Moon by granting huge tracts of land to whoever first sets up a permanent settlement, slightly less land for the one who comes second, even less for whoever comes third, and so on and so forth. It would of course have to be internationally recognized, but it seems to me like a good way to attract serious investment.
 
The whole Moon? I doubt it. But concerning this, we really need some international treaty to regulate the use, exploitation, and settlement of the bodies in the Solar System. We want something to promote settlement, but there must be some restrictions dictated by the need to preserve potential native life (such as on Mars) and the need to balance personal property claims with competing claims.
I agree we desperately need regulation wrt potential life and what to do about commercial claims as pretty soon commercial operators are going to be doing stuff essentially without any official standing.

I am really torn about potential microbial Martian life, however. On the one hand, obviously it's essential to preserve it. On the other hand, that shouldn't make the whole planet off-limits to settlement/exploration/exploitation in order to stop contamination and it certainly shouldn't make eventual terraforming off-limits. For complex ecosystems such as might exist under an ice-moon's surface, sure, don't screw with that beyond studying it. But if a few microbes stand in the way of settlement some place, I say to hell with them. Humans and the preservation of our species come first because we invented rockets while the ET bugs eek out an existence clinging to the undersides of rocks.


I've been hearing lately that the US congress is considering designating the entire friggin moon as a national landmark or preserve just to protect the Apollo landing sites. Probably overblown, but I'm too lazy to look it up, so any truth to that?
No, it's just the landing sites and the adjacent land AFAIK. They are worried that people might fly over them and disturb them with downwash (or even crash) so they have restricted airspace as well for lack of a better word. How the US government plans to enforce these no-go zones (especially if it's a foreign government/entity that violates them) is beyond me.


The second problem is the need to keep European space industries "busy" with building something new every now and then. Ariane-5 is "old", therefore we need something "new", something that will "grow European technological capabilities". ESA stopped ordering new ATVs for ISS ressuply exactly for this reason, after only 5 (!!!!!1!!!1!1!1!!) of them have been build. Yes, ESA spent billions on R&D and then it kills the programme after five flight. Presumably because ATV is now too "old" and we need something "new". I am using quotation marks because I consider these views and arguments completely ridiculous and absurd, especially considering the funding situation. I want to scream something like "If you want to do something new and innovative, build SKYLON, otherwise STFU and stick with what works!"
Wait

Wait
wait wait wait

They CANCELLED ATV production???

WTH?

Also, I strongly suspect that the choice of solid fuel stages has a lot to do with the French SLBM programme :rolleyes:
Hahaha yeah I think you're right. I was reading about the Ariane 5 and it's solid boosters are basically the newest French SLBM's without warheads.

Question - I can't remember, but are they developing all new solid fuel boosters instead of recycling the Ariane 5 set? Edit: Nevermind, saw your later comment about them coming from Vega.

Although the fact that the JWST is to be launched on Ariane-5 does seem to prove that there are quite worthwhile science missions which do require a medium-heavy lift rocket. If ESA got more money for more heavy-class planetary missions, I am pretty sure they'd utilize Ariane-5's lift potential to its absolute fullest. Alas, that's not likely to happen.
Yeah, plus Ariane 5 is manrated, right? So they're losing that entire avenue of R&D. They may not see a need for a Hermes-type minishuttle now, but in the future it's going to cost billions to reinvent the wheel and design, develop and test a new manrated rocket if they stop building Ariane 5's. For whatever reason (and it's probably all about having industry make 'new' things as you said) it seems like once a government stops building a rocket line, they never go back and start building them again even when their capabilities would be useful for current missions. Look at the Saturn V - I'm pretty sure it could handle any and all SLS missions with some updating and strap-on boosters.


I don't know how easy the solid boosters are to change. AFAIK it took ATK a lot of time and money to add one more segment to the shuttle SRBs for the use on Ares-5/SLS. I believe that the ESA guys want to use VEGA-like solid rocket stages on Ariane-6, which means these will have filament-wound composite casings and electro-mechanical nozzle actuators. I think they just want to stick to one size to save money (at the expense of the launcher's flexibility, of course).
You're right, it did take a barrel of cash and a bunch of time to update them. I'd just like to mention a few mitigating circumstances. (sorry for the numbered list, it's ugly but efficient)

1) AFAIK the Shuttle SRB's weren't designed from the outset to easily adapt an extra segment. Even though Ariane 6 is using Vega-derived boosters, they are going to have to reengineer them to integrate them into the new launcher anyway, so why not design in that capability from the outset?

2) The Shuttle SRB's are intended to be reusable (but I don't think SLS ones are - have to check, but they're still the same basic design AFAIK) so I imagine from an engineering standpoint they're more expensive to change due to the modifications that make them reusable but also add complexity.

3) The Shuttle/SLS SRB's are manrated, so there's that whole expense and all of the necessary testing and careful design studies to go along with it that the Ariane 6 boosters don't have to do. That inflated the cost of reengineering them for the extra segment by quite a bit I'm sure.


Yeah, exactly. As I said, I think he's stuck in late 1980s/early 1990s thinking, refusing to accept that space had become much more international since those times (as symbolized by the ISS, which Zubrin derides at every opportunity). I am quite allergic to his favourite saying about the 'sons and daughters of Chinese peasants getting to college'. I mean, seriously, how condescending is that? China may have been pretty backwards even in late 1980s, but today there are probably many more people studying sciences, engineering, maths, information tech., etc. and graduating from these fields each year than in the US.
Lol what a condescending dick
Which country currently has an independent manned spaceflight program, China or the US?
:lol:
 
I agree we desperately need regulation wrt potential life and what to do about commercial claims as pretty soon commercial operators are going to be doing stuff essentially without any official standing.

I am really torn about potential microbial Martian life, however. On the one hand, obviously it's essential to preserve it. On the other hand, that shouldn't make the whole planet off-limits to settlement/exploration/exploitation in order to stop contamination and it certainly shouldn't make eventual terraforming off-limits. For complex ecosystems such as might exist under an ice-moon's surface, sure, don't screw with that beyond studying it. But if a few microbes stand in the way of settlement some place, I say to hell with them. Humans and the preservation of our species come first because we invented rockets while the ET bugs eek out an existence clinging to the undersides of rocks.

That's pretty much my view too. I would sum it up as "reasonable regard for protection of extraterrestrial life". I.e. we find some bacteria in hot springs deep underground on Mars. I think we should of course do what we can to leave them undisturbed, study them, and in general try to leave them alone while we go about our business. But the extreme conservationist view expressed by some in the planetary exploration community that the moment we confirm the existence of native Martian life, we should just leave the planet alone or expend huge effort to prevent contamination, is in my humble opinion insane. This I think for two reasons:

(1) Earth and Mars probably contaminated each other many times over the past few billion years. Asteroids have been impacting planets and throwing out rock and dirt, some of which has travelled across the void and landed on the other planet. It is very possible (and I think this would be THE most amazing discovery) tha if life indeed exists on Mars, it has been transplanted there from Earth, or vice versa and we're all basically descendants of a few Martian bacteria which crashed into the Earth in a meteorite some 3 billion years ago, when both planets were still active worlds. Since contamination has been the norm in the past few billion years, trying to prevent it today would be rather belated.

(2) Humans are the greatest disaster which befell Earth life in 65 million years. I say this deliberately, without emotional baggage. We are the cause of the greatest loss of biodiversity since the asteroid impact which wiped out the dinosaurs and thus opened the gateway for our own evolution. Religious nonsense aside, if humanity has a higher purpose, it is two-fold: (a) to prevent an even greater disaster in the form of another impact; (b) to spread Earth life elsewhere to ensure its continuous survival until the stars themselves die. If we are to redeem ourselves as a part of this biosphere, it is our duty to extend it to as many places as we can, and thus open new and unique opportunities for life to develop and evolve.

I of course prefer to do it without destroying other life. Surely if we in the future come across a planet with an equally developed biosphere as Earth's, we shouldn't destroy it just to spread our forms of life, that would be barbaric. But if the "native life" consists of a few species of bacteria and the planet is otherwise inactive and unlikely to ever improve, and we don't have other candidate planets for terraforming, I say we just do it. After all, it's not like we wipe the native bacteria out - if they find a place in the new biosphere, the better. Terraformation will open new opportunities for them as well.


Wait

Wait
wait wait wait

They CANCELLED ATV production???

WTH?

Yup. ESA will end the programme after the next ATV flight (the production line is already closed) and it now seeks to pay its share for ISS maintenance in other ways; ways which will "be technologically challenging for European industry" (or some such BS, I am paraphrasing).

Hahaha yeah I think you're right. I was reading about the Ariane 5 and it's solid boosters are basically the newest French SLBM's without warheads.

Yeah. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, I suspect.

Question - I can't remember, but are they developing all new solid fuel boosters instead of recycling the Ariane 5 set? Edit: Nevermind, saw your later comment about them coming from Vega.

Both is correct. Vega first stage itself is (heavily modified and) derived from Ariane-5 boosters (I believe), while the second and third solid stages are Italian products. (BTW, Vega could be a decent ICBM if Europe ever wanted one :lol: ).

Yeah, plus Ariane 5 is manrated, right?

Not really. As far as I understand it, it was conceived as a man-rated launcher, but once Hermes was cancelled the need for man-rating disappeared and Ariane-5 left the design phase as a non-man-rated launcher. I think the main problem is vibrations, which are (allegedly) pretty severe. But this is hearsay, I don't know where I read it.

On the other hand, if it were necessary, it wouldn't be that difficult to make Ariane-5 man-rated. It is pretty reliable, powerful, and it has margins for all the modification that would be needed.

So they're losing that entire avenue of R&D. They may not see a need for a Hermes-type minishuttle now, but in the future it's going to cost billions to reinvent the wheel and design, develop and test a new manrated rocket if they stop building Ariane 5's. For whatever reason (and it's probably all about having industry make 'new' things as you said) it seems like once a government stops building a rocket line, they never go back and start building them again even when their capabilities would be useful for current missions. Look at the Saturn V - I'm pretty sure it could handle any and all SLS missions with some updating and strap-on boosters.

Yep. A sad world we live in. I guess this is because these rockets require very specialized production lines, so once the subsidies are gone, they are just dismantled and retooled for other production. Keeping them mothballed just in case production might be re-started in the future would be prohibitively expensive and in any case not interesting for the companies. Also, I understand there is a lot of "tribal knowledge" involved in building these things, and once that is set loose and the people leave for other projects, it is pretty hard to start again just from the blueprints.

Oh, hasn't NASA actually lost the Saturn-V blueprints? I remember reading about it, but I don't know if it's true :)

You're right, it did take a barrel of cash and a bunch of time to update them. I'd just like to mention a few mitigating circumstances. (sorry for the numbered list, it's ugly but efficient)

1) AFAIK the Shuttle SRB's weren't designed from the outset to easily adapt an extra segment. Even though Ariane 6 is using Vega-derived boosters, they are going to have to reengineer them to integrate them into the new launcher anyway, so why not design in that capability from the outset?

2) The Shuttle SRB's are intended to be reusable (but I don't think SLS ones are - have to check, but they're still the same basic design AFAIK) so I imagine from an engineering standpoint they're more expensive to change due to the modifications that make them reusable but also add complexity.

3) The Shuttle/SLS SRB's are manrated, so there's that whole expense and all of the necessary testing and careful design studies to go along with it that the Ariane 6 boosters don't have to do. That inflated the cost of reengineering them for the extra segment by quite a bit I'm sure.

I suspect it's all about keeping production costs down. They just want to have one universal booster block and use it as much as possible. Who knows, we can only speculate as to the reasons behind this glaring lack of flexibility in a rocket which needs to be flexible to compete internationally... :crazyeye:

Which country currently has an independent manned spaceflight program, China or the US?
:lol:

Haha, touché.

Zubrin also keeps saying how he believes in an open future where all nations have access to space and opportunities put their stamp on it, and that presumably includes China. With the same breath though, he's saying things like "if we want our civilization which is based on liberty and freedom and free enterprise (and whatnot) to continue, we need to get there first!", clearly implying that having Americans as the pre-eminent force in space is the only possible way of guaranteeing that humanity in space remains free.

I find this annoying to the point of amusement :lol:
 
More on the Ariane-6 debate in Europe. I am so glad that there are people in high positions voicing the same concerns I have:

DLR’s Woerner Remains Unconvinced Just-unveiled Ariane 6 Design Is Right Way To Go

By Peter B. de Selding | Jul. 12, 2013

PARIS — The head of the German space agency on July 12 said Germany remains unconvinced that the Ariane 6 design decided by the European Space Agency (ESA) and enthusiastically endorsed by France is the right way forward for Europe’s launcher sector.

Johann-Dietrich Woerner, chairman of the German Aerospace Center, DLR, said the German government remains in favor of continued development of the current Ariane 5 heavy-lift rocket, with possible evolutions including environmentally acceptable new fuels in place of the vehicle’s current solid-rocket boosters.

Speaking three days after French Research Minister Genevieve Fioraso applauded the solid-fuel design of the next-generation Ariane 6 and the consensus among European governments backing it, Woerner suggested that whatever consensus there may be on Ariane 6 is wafer-thin.

“I am quite certain that after Ariane 5 there will be an Ariane 6,” Woerner said. “But Ariane 5 still has a large potential for improvement, and the question is where the best place is to invest in Europe’s launchers.”

German-French differences about the urgency of developing Ariane 6 — France wants to move quickly, Germany does not — were papered over at last November’s ESA ministerial conference in Naples, Italy, with a compromise that called for preliminary design work on Ariane 6 and continued development of the Ariane 5 upgrade called Midlife Evolution, or ME.

After seven months of work, the 20-nation ESA on July 8 presented what the agency said is the Ariane 6 design that is most likely to be operational by 2021, to cost no more than 70 million euros ($92 million) per launch, and to replace both today’s Ariane 5 and the medium-lift Russian Soyuz rocket that Europe operates from its spaceport in French Guiana.

Antonio Fabrizi, ESA’s launcher director, said in a July 9 interview that the agency concluded that a liquid-fueled Ariane 6 would be more costly to produce per launch than the mainly solid-fueled version the agency decided to pursue.

Two industrial consortia looking at future launcher options concluded that liquid- and solid-fueled Ariane 6 versions would cost about the same if one assumed a launch rate of at least nine or 10 campaigns per year. Any lower launch cadence, he said, would argue for solid propellant.

Woerner did not disagree with that, but said solid propellant carries other disadvantages, including the fact that a solid-fueled second stage adds vibration risks to sensitive satellite payloads and also pollutes the upper atmosphere.

“The solution selected seems to be the most workable in terms of costs, but from an environmental point of view we are really taking a step backward,” Woerner said. “But my main point is: What is this launcher for? Is it to make life easy for commercial satellite operators, or is it to assure European launcher autonomy? If it’s the latter, then there are lots of ways of meeting this objective.”

The Ariane 6 design unveiled by ESA has a payload capability limited to one satellite weighing up to 6,500 kilograms to be launched into geostationary orbit.

Woerner said most studies suggest that satellites, on average, are getting heavier, not lighter, and that a capacity limited to 6,500 kilograms for a launcher to enter service in the 2020s is insufficient. It is also insufficient to carry many Earth escape-orbit payloads that Europe may well need as it works with NASA and others on a space exploration program.

Citing one example, he said, the Ariane 6 design would not be able to carry the NASA-led Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle whose service module Europe is providing under a barter arrangement with the U.S. space agency.

Any hope that Europe one day would be launching its own astronauts would evaporate with Ariane 6, Woerner said.

Fabrizi said the Ariane 6, while currently designed to launch in a single configuration, has room to grow. For example, he said, the four identical solid-rocket boosters that make up the vehicle’s first and second stages — three comprising the first stage, one as the second stage — could be increased in size to carry heavier payloads.

Jean-Yves Le Gall, president of the French space agency, CNES, said the Ariane 6 design offers the best chance for Europe’s launcher sector to remain competitive in the global commercial market. While the Ariane 6 business model may not need as much commercial business as the current Ariane 5 ECA rocket to be viable, it will need several commercial launches per year to keep per-launch costs down for European governments using the rocket for their civil and military payloads.

“The key to the Ariane 6 DNA lies in having four identical boosters,” Le Gall said in a July 11 interview. “If we’re launching 15 times per year, that’s 60 identical boosters because we have a single design for the vehicle. This is how we can keep costs down.”

Woerner said that for this kind of scale economy to work, all the Ariane 6 solid-fueled boosters would need to be made in the same place. Given today’s European industrial landscape, he said, that would mean in Italy.

But if Italy’s industry is to be given such a large role in Ariane 6’s development, the Italian government will have to agree to pay a corresponding share of Ariane 6’s development costs. Given the French insistence that Ariane 6 be approved for full development starting in 2014, can Italy support such a financial charge? Woerner asked.

In addition to the cost of up to 3.5 billion euros ($4.6 billion) for Ariane 6, European ministers next year will be asked to decide on whether to complete development of the Ariane 5 ME, at a cost of about 1.5 billion euros.

With France tentatively agreeing to fund about 50 percent of each vehicle, that would mean the French government committing, starting next year, to 2.5 billion euros in rocket development payments. Asked whether France could finance both programs, Le Gall said it is too early to determine what will cost how much.

Fabrizi said ESA will finish its preliminary requirements review for Ariane 6 in October, at which point a more detailed cost and performance estimate will be available.

“We are at risk here of the European Space Agency becoming, in effect, a European Launcher Agency,” Woerner said. “We in Germany happen to think there are many things ESA does — environmental observation, the international space station and other things — that should not be sacrificed to launchers at a time when overall space budgets will remain flat.”

Source

Amen to that. At least the Germans still know how to use their grey brain matter.
 
How much could I see with a telescope with a X100 magnifier?

I assume I could see eight planets (I assume Pluto would still be out of sight): how clear would each one look? How much would my view of the stars improve?

Yes, I think you're right. Mercury, Venus, mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are all naked eye objects. Uranus and Neptune require larger light collection and better resolution than evolution gave us.

Galilean moons are beautiful little pearls, visible with my 7x binoculars.

With 100 power you could see more of the moons, and perhaps get some definitions in the ring system of Saturn. Titan, too. I'll look into it more today. We have an 8" cassegrain-schmidt, I'm curious what power it works out to with different eye pieces.
 
Hehe, reminds me of a few years ago, I was up early for sunrise, and I looked at saturn with my telescope, and I managed to see titan even though the sun was already up and plainly visible from my spot. Of course, Venus was visible to the naked eye after sunrise too, IIRC.

Science and technology ftw. :cooool:
 
tl;dr summary:

-> As many across the pond may not know, ESA is *not* institutionally part of the EU but a separate institution with different origins, structure, interests, and ways of doing business. If the EU is to be considered (with a great degree of simplification) a European government, then a curious situation arises where the government does not in fact control its space agency. To make a suitable comparison, imagine NASA was not controlled by the American federal government, but an independent association of (say) 46 of the 50 states which make up the US; the federal government would thus not have direct control over NASA's funding and direction of its space activities. (Here I imagine many Americans eagerly :yup: at the notion ;) ).

However, the EU has been given greater role in space by the latest treaty (which in many areas changed the EU into more of a federation than it used to be before) and the EU has also been providing funding for some high-profile space endeavours such as the Galileo satellite navigation system and GMES Earth observation programme. As a result, the EU has had enough of ESA's complete autonomy and it now seeks to "rein in" the agency, possibly even incorporating it as an EU agency.

This will of course be problematic, because many people rather like being autonomous of the EU (and its pesky rules concerning free industrial competition...), and moreover not all of its members are also members of the EU (Switzerland, Norway). However, given the increasing role of the EU in funding for many space projects in Europe, ESA's position is precarious and it has to seek ways to accommodate EU's demands.

(/political update)

EU Pushes ESA For More Collaboration

Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

The European Union has always had an uneasy relationship with the European Space Agency (ESA).

A club of mostly EU-member states, ESA's 20 nations fund billions in a la carte development programs outside EU control, where the agency is free to uphold national industry workshare demands over competitive pricing, set policy and negotiate accords with other space powers, albeit without the international clout Brussels could bring to the table.

Since it was formally established in 1975, ESA's approach to R&D has proved effective at fostering technological innovation in Europe, helping sustain the aerospace and defense sector through economic ups and downs in the past three decades. Last month, the agency approved $13 billion in new spending over the coming years, a flat funding line compared with the last multiyear spending plan set in 2008, but significant given the drastic cuts some ESA member governments are seeing at home.

“ESA uses very flexible and efficient rules to manage 70% of the public civilian space activities of its member states, and it is an incredible success,” says Alain Dupas, an international space policy consultant based in Paris.

Only in the last 10 years has the EU assumed a stronger role in space, helping finance the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (Egnos), taking on the Galileo satellite navigation system and initiating the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) program, with technical management and contract oversight from ESA.

In 2009, Europe's constitutional treaty specifically gave the EU a shared role in setting space policy with ESA. But if the relationship is to continue, the EU expects the space agency to evolve.

In a policy proposal issued just days before a key ESA budget meeting in Naples Nov. 20-21, the EU's executive arm, the European Commission, took an aggressive stance with ESA, reiterating shared authority over European space under the 2009 Lisbon Treaty and handing it a to-do list of changes aimed at bringing ESA more in line with the EU.

“The commission considers that a clear target date should be set between 2020 and 2025 for this long-term objective,” the communique asserts, outlining options ranging from better coordination under the status quo to making ESA an EU agency.

Chief among the commission's worries is that non-EU members—Norway, Switzerland and Canada (the latter serving as an associate member through multilateral accord)—could have disproportionate leverage over the EU's activities in military space. “This poses an obvious problem in general and an even more acute problem when it comes to security and defense matters,” the commission states in the Nov. 14 document, which urges ESA to incorporate management structures geared solely toward EU programs that would enable Switzerland and Norway to take part, subject to EU agreement.

The policy proposal also takes aim at ESA's “missing political accountability,” although, despite having no formal relationship with the European Parliament, ESA has for years set space policy in key areas where the EU has not played a role.

“The discussion and the debate on the future of European access to space is a good example of that,” says Gerard Brachet, a space policy consultant with the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris and a former director-general of French space agency CNES, referring to an ongoing battle between France and Germany over Europe's future launch vehicle.

ESA's two largest financial backers had been haggling over whether to continue an upgrade of Europe's Ariane 5 rocket, known as the Ariane 5 ME, or embark on a more affordable successor, the Ariane 6. The budget meeting only partially resolved the debate, which is expected to resume in 2014 when the agency meets again at the ministerial level. But the two sides agreed to continue the Ariane 5 ME while conducting detailed design work on the Ariane 6 and identifying potential synergies between the two that could lead to a leaner, less costly launch vehicle development by the early 2020s.

“That was a decision that did not take place in Brussels. It took place in the ESA Council,” Brachet says.

Sensitive to the commission's concerns, ESA is making changes. For the first time, it has appointed two chairmen who will lead its ruling council for the next three years: Mauro Dell'Ambrogio, Swiss state secretary for education and research; and Francois Biltgen, Luxembourg minister of higher education and research, who will deal with the EU where Dell'Ambrogio cannot.

ESA also adopted a resolution at the November ministerial meeting that initiates a dialogue to define how it can adapt to the EU's growing interest in space.

“There's a recognition, post-Lisbon Treaty, that we have to work out a new modus vivendi,” says Britain's science minister, David Willetts, who led the U.K. delegation at the council ministerial. “But it's strong evidence that ESA isn't broke, and it would be a pity to dismantle ESA or end up with an EU structure that parallels what ESA does.”

ESA Director General Jean-Jacques Dordain will put forth proposals for the agency's “further evolution” at the 2014 ministerial meeting, according to the ESA resolution. In the meantime, Biltgen says ESA will air concerns with the EC's policy proposal during a meeting of the EU Competitiveness Council in Brussels Dec. 11. “We will express some reservations to some elements of the communication,” Biltgen said following the ministerial meeting. “This is Brussels making some restraints. But these differences are not so big that we cannot, for instance, try to find common ground.”
 
A quite damning analysis of the likely costs of SLS/Orion.

Revisiting SLS/Orion launch costs


A few quotes from the article that deserve attention:

Several launch cost estimates for the SLS/Orion system can be made. The lowest and least believable, of $500 million per launch, is from an unofficial NASA document that does not specify if the figure includes the estimated $30-billion development cost or even the annual operating budget, exclusive of costs for specific launches.

I had recently been seeing conflicting reports about the cost and ability to reuse the Orion spacecraft. The Orion capsule is theoretically reusable, but will land in salt water due to the decision of the designers not to use a dry land (pusher type) launch abort and landing system that would use up only 1/40th of the vehicle’s entire 20 metric ton mass and instead choosing to use an old-fashioned expendable puller escape system instead. The more modern pusher system could have been used as a landing system and an abort system. It is similar to those being designed for use on the Dragon capsule, the CST-100, and the Dream Chaser, and these are reusable. The SLS launch abort system and the Orion’s service module are both expendable.

The PICA-X materials used on the Dragon capsule have been designed to withstand entry from a return lunar trajectory and were derived from NASA-developed PICA. If the Orion could be reused, the older style heat shield used on Orion would need to be replaced after each flight.

:hammer2:

The current large SLS/Orion development budget of about $3 billion a year precludes any development of any other payloads for the SLS. In an article in 2012, Chris Kraft and Tom Moser point out that development of “the crewed lunar lander, a multi-mission space exploration vehicle (MMSEV), a deep space habitat, a lunar surface rover and other lunar infrastructure” are being crowded out by the SLS development effort, so that by the time the SLS would be ready to use, there would be little or no hardware for it to launch. The same would be true for any specialized hardware needed for asteroid or Mars exploration. In addition, they point out that the “the extra $4 billion to $5 billion per year needed to make an SLS-based exploration strategy work” will be unaffordable given the worsening fiscal situation. The dilemma posed by this situation is that NASA can afford to slowly develop a giant rocket, or develop payloads to launch on the rocket, but not both at the same time.

:crazyeye:

Coincidentally with my new analysis, a recent article appears to support those who have been saying that NASA cannot and will not launch the SLS very often. A June 28, 2013, article in Space News, covering an official media tour of the Michoud plant and touting its new welding equipment, seems to indicate that NASA intends to fly the SLS only about once every four years even after the rocket’s development is completed. Previously the slowest launch rate anyone predicted was every two years. Even if NASA wants to fly the SLS more often, the cost of preparing new payloads for it may still greatly limit its flight rate. The Space News article quotes Steven Squyres, chairman of the NASA Advisory Council, as saying, “We have no experience with a human-rated flight system that only flies every two or three or four years.” This then brings into question the readiness of a launch team to do safe launches at rare intervals. This is a significant issue if you remember the problems of starting up shuttle launches again after the long launch gaps after the two shuttle accidents.

:eek:

2330a.jpg


The upshot is that the situation described by my previous assessment (and those of many others) remains accurate and in some respects is worse:
  • No hardware to be launched by the SLS other than the crew capsule can be developed until the SLS is developed.
  • The SLS will only be able to perform single launch manned space “stunts” or a few super-expensive science launches at very rare intervals.
  • Due to the available share of the NASA budget that would be taken up by single SLS launches, the SLS will not be able to support base construction anywhere in space, at L1/L2, GEO, on the Moon, or on Mars.
  • The SLS is draining away the lifeblood—funding—of the space program, which should, by all rights, be used to speed up the development of private rockets and end payments to the Russians for space station crew launches as soon as possible.
  • The SLS is a ridiculously expensive way to launch astronaut crews into orbit. With a crew of six, and assuming that each astronaut’s share of the Orion’s 20-ton mass is about three tons, the lowest conceivable cost per seat is $88 million and the most expensive is $368 million, even assuming that some other payload is being launched along with the Orion capsule. It would be much cheaper to continue to use the expensive Russian launch service.

:suicide:

----

Seriously, I hope this gets cancelled ASAP, because otherwise NASA is *DEAD*. It will become a corporate welfare agency subsidizing the US aerospace industry without actually doing any manned space exploration at all. In this case, I'd grudgingly support an end to the human spaceflight programme and use the funds for probes instead. Because probes at least DO SOMETHING USEFUL! :gripe:
 
Yes, I think you're right. Mercury, Venus, mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are all naked eye objects. Uranus and Neptune require larger light collection and better resolution than evolution gave us.

Galilean moons are beautiful little pearls, visible with my 7x binoculars.

With 100 power you could see more of the moons, and perhaps get some definitions in the ring system of Saturn. Titan, too. I'll look into it more today. We have an 8" cassegrain-schmidt, I'm curious what power it works out to with different eye pieces.

Uranus is a naked eye object in some places. Being new to this, I've never seen it, but I know Uranus is magnitude 5.something. You're in Queens, so I'm guessing its out of range for you, but not in more rural areas.

Mathematically, I feel like Neptune should be just barely visible in a class I sky as shown here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bortle_Dark-Sky_Scale

However, every source I've seen says it can never be seen with the naked eye (Even though its magnitude is sometimes lower than 8), and of course, I have no idea where you'd find a sky that dark anyways. I'm curious if it can theoretically be spotted under absolutely perfect conditions. I'm absolutely certain that Uranus can.
 
@Winner -

That SLS article bummed me out so bad I couldn't comment on it for a few days. Sad panda. :sad:

The whole thing seems to have fallen off of Obama's list of priorities, though given what's on his plate it's understandable. I think many of the problems with the SLS program is simple underfunding. I really don't think anyone intends for it to fly without a payload or for it to only fly once every 5 years. However, they are simply planning for the budget realities they are facing now - they can't plan for money that may not come even though they may expect it. They probably expect more money and I assume if our government can get itself together to do anything (literally, our entire Government is deadlocked and incapable of doing anything at the moment) they will authorize a level of funding that lets the SLS program build hardware and schedule more launches.

I know you aren't a fan of political grandstanding, but in this one instance I think it could help. Our government is divided and gridlocked without any objective except to implode. Maybe if Obama gave a really rallying speech about space exploration he could get Congress and the public interested, interested enough to act and authorize sustainable funding. Pipe dream though. :(

___________


Did you guys hear about the Italian astronaut who almost drowned last week? His spacesuit developed a leak from its cooling system while he was on EVA and his helmet filled up. They brought him in just in time as he'd lost the ability to speak and nearly the ability to breath. :eek:
 
Yeah it was pretty bad. At first he just though he was sweating a lot (first spacewalk) but the other Astronauts assured him it wasn't that. Then he tasted the fluid and it had a wang from the stuff they put in the coolant system. It naturally took some time to get him into the airlock and by the time they did he very nearly was drowning and couldn't speak. He's ok though. :)

Coincidentally, the guy he spacewalked with had suit troubles on the last spacewalk he went on as well.
 
@Winner -

That SLS article bummed me out so bad I couldn't comment on it for a few days. Sad panda. :sad:

The whole thing seems to have fallen off of Obama's list of priorities, though given what's on his plate it's understandable. I think many of the problems with the SLS program is simple underfunding. I really don't think anyone intends for it to fly without a payload or for it to only fly once every 5 years. However, they are simply planning for the budget realities they are facing now - they can't plan for money that may not come even though they may expect it. They probably expect more money and I assume if our government can get itself together to do anything (literally, our entire Government is deadlocked and incapable of doing anything at the moment) they will authorize a level of funding that lets the SLS program build hardware and schedule more launches.

I know you aren't a fan of political grandstanding, but in this one instance I think it could help. Our government is divided and gridlocked without any objective except to implode. Maybe if Obama gave a really rallying speech about space exploration he could get Congress and the public interested, interested enough to act and authorize sustainable funding. Pipe dream though. :(

Yeah, I know about the paralysis in the US government (an inevitable consequence of changing the House every two years...), but the article suggests it's more than just lack of funding. The problem is that SLS is simply far too expensive, and the way it is being developed strongly indicates that its main purpose is not to launch stuff to space but to apportion money to politically crucial constituencies and aerospace conglomerates.

Now, I understand that the problem is that NASA - even if it had a strong, determined administrator at its helm, which it does not, and was reasonably united about what its purpose and goals are - is essentially powerless against this overbearing political meddling by the Congress which keeps giving it contradictory directives and expects it to do beyond LEO exploration without giving it the money (only to change the mission a year or two later, when it becomes apparent that the set goals are unrealistic).

But, this is no way to develop the kind of heavy-lift rocket that is needed. Even the government-issue Saturn-V was developed far faster and ended up far less expensive than SLS is projected to cost (if anything, developing a rocket with basically the same capabilities as Saturn-V 40 years *after* it last flew should be LESS expensive :crazyeye: ). At this point, NASA should simply go on strike. Tell the politicians to frak off, "we won't commit suicide chasing after your politics-driven nonsense you keep mandating", and don't let up until the politicians get a grip on reality. If they want heavy-lift, then by all means - let's have an OPEN competitive tendering for developing it. Companies will submit their proposals, and the one which offers to do it for the lowest price in the shortest time (assuming its realistic) will then be given the contract. Milestone achievements will be specified; once the company reaches one, money gets released. If there are delays or budget overruns, it's the company's problem.

Under current cost-plus form of public contracts, the government basically pays for the costs of development plus a certain percentage of it which the company then takes as profit. This obviously leads to delays and budget overruns as the contractors have a clear interest in dragging their feet and making everything as expensive as possible (after all, they're getting percentages, so if they make stuff fast and cheap, they get paid less. It's perverse.) Clearly, heavy-lift CANNOT be developed CHEAPLY in this way.

---

Did you guys hear about the Italian astronaut who almost drowned last week? His spacesuit developed a leak from its cooling system while he was on EVA and his helmet filled up. They brought him in just in time as he'd lost the ability to speak and nearly the ability to breath. :eek:

Yeah, quite scary - in weightlessness, water *clings* to surfaces. You can literally drown in half a litre of water, because you cannot wipe it off of your face if you're in a spacesuit. Not to mention that it also clings to your eyes, so it makes it hard for you to see what you're doing.
 
SLS and any other heavy-lift system will be a corporate handout, there is just no way around that because if they don't do the handouts the funding bills don't get passed. I'm not saying that's smart nor do I agree with it, but that's the situation we have and it has more or less worked up until the government decided to stop functioning.

The cost is going to be partially inflated because they fund it in such a herky-jerky piecemeal way. When they don't appropriate fully upfront then by necessity the development schedule gets stretched out which puts a lot of upward pressure on the budget all by itself. There are a lot of other problems (like evil cost-plus that you mentioned) but not funding it at reasonable levels to begin with ends up inflating the final cost substantially. You have to pay to retain staff that may be splitting time with other projects due to not having enough money to work do all the testing/building/design work on the SLS in a straightforward manner. Then you have to pay to store and maintain any hardware that's built before they're integrated (not cheap) and then you have inflation and cost-of-living adjustments adding to the cost of retaining those workers year over year. A lot of the engineers are also much older than their Saturn V era counterparts (and in many cases are the same people) so you're paying inflated salaries and healthcare costs relative to what they paid the mid-20 somethings who built the Saturn V. That's another huge factor and it's not really getting better, only worse.

I agree the launch schedule and lack of payloads are ridiculous, but I don't agree with the notion the article raises that the SLS is basically being built with no purpose or end goal in mind. NASA has and always had very clear objectives, they know what they've been mandated to do by the President or Congress (land on the Moon, go to an asteroid, capture an asteroid, go to Mars, lunar base) and they also know what they'd like to do with the hardware (Skylab II). However, the problem is that Congress and the President change the mandated missions midstream, (moon program goes poof, now the asteroid program is threatened by a lunar base) and that's something they have no control over. What's worse is that although Obama had NASA on a reasonable track with his asteroid mission (and though the initial funding was low he was counting on being able to ramp-it up significantly in the next couple of years), all of that is back up in the air as Congress not only threatens to cancel that and mandate a lunar base but it also isn't even willing to fund the lunar base they mandate.

It's incredibly ridiculous but the fault doesn't lay with NASA on this one and I don't think it's fair to assume that NASA has no concrete use for the SLS. Also, I could be totally wrong, but I think that the estimates to fly once every 4-5 years is based on current budgets remaining flat. In the current budgetary climate they are right in planning conservatively and not planning lots of flights. But IIRC under the plan outline by Obama (if Congress doesn't destroy it), NASA was going to get big budget increases to speed up the whole program. They just can't budget or plan for that until they have some reasonable assurances that funding will come through.


Cost plus is a huge problem and that accounts for lots of the problems NASA faces. I honestly don't know how much control they have over that as all of the branches of government make the same kinds of contracts so it may be something they can't change without Congressional approval. I don't know though.

I also agree that they need to open up a more competitive process for the projects they have. The plan they are going with at the moment though is to contract out the smaller tasks (servicing the ISS) while leaving NASA with the task of heading up all of the bigger things like going to asteroids. I'm not sure of the wisdom of this approach, but that's what it is.

Having said all that I'm just pleased that they are progressing, albeit slowly, at all. It's not as bad of a clusterfrak as the Constellation program was and that's saying something. :lol:

Edit: oh and NASA striking - lol look up what happened to the FAA air traffic controllers in the 80's who tried it. Not only do they risk getting fired, but public sentiment is pretty anti-union so a strike would turn the public against them. Plus the public is generally uniformed at all on these issues and without a strong public oriented space-lobby there's nothing to stop Congress from destroying NASA in retaliation.
 
Yeah, NASA can't strike, plain and simple. It *will* be forcibly shut down if it does. Sadly it's damned if it does, damned if it doesn't. There is no winning this one, pretty much. :undecide:
 
Oh one other thing I forgot to concede: SLS is too damn expensive, that much is certain. I guess I'm just arguing that's not entirely NASA's fault.
 
SLS and any other heavy-lift system will be a corporate handout, there is just no way around that because if they don't do the handouts the funding bills don't get passed. I'm not saying that's smart nor do I agree with it, but that's the situation we have and it has more or less worked up until the government decided to stop functioning.

The cost is going to be partially inflated because they fund it in such a herky-jerky piecemeal way. When they don't appropriate fully upfront then by necessity the development schedule gets stretched out which puts a lot of upward pressure on the budget all by itself. There are a lot of other problems (like evil cost-plus that you mentioned) but not funding it at reasonable levels to begin with ends up inflating the final cost substantially. You have to pay to retain staff that may be splitting time with other projects due to not having enough money to work do all the testing/building/design work on the SLS in a straightforward manner. Then you have to pay to store and maintain any hardware that's built before they're integrated (not cheap) and then you have inflation and cost-of-living adjustments adding to the cost of retaining those workers year over year. A lot of the engineers are also much older than their Saturn V era counterparts (and in many cases are the same people) so you're paying inflated salaries and healthcare costs relative to what they paid the mid-20 somethings who built the Saturn V. That's another huge factor and it's not really getting better, only worse.

I agree the launch schedule and lack of payloads are ridiculous, but I don't agree with the notion the article raises that the SLS is basically being built with no purpose or end goal in mind. NASA has and always had very clear objectives, they know what they've been mandated to do by the President or Congress (land on the Moon, go to an asteroid, capture an asteroid, go to Mars, lunar base) and they also know what they'd like to do with the hardware (Skylab II). However, the problem is that Congress and the President change the mandated missions midstream, (moon program goes poof, now the asteroid program is threatened by a lunar base) and that's something they have no control over. What's worse is that although Obama had NASA on a reasonable track with his asteroid mission (and though the initial funding was low he was counting on being able to ramp-it up significantly in the next couple of years), all of that is back up in the air as Congress not only threatens to cancel that and mandate a lunar base but it also isn't even willing to fund the lunar base they mandate.

It's incredibly ridiculous but the fault doesn't lay with NASA on this one and I don't think it's fair to assume that NASA has no concrete use for the SLS. Also, I could be totally wrong, but I think that the estimates to fly once every 4-5 years is based on current budgets remaining flat. In the current budgetary climate they are right in planning conservatively and not planning lots of flights. But IIRC under the plan outline by Obama (if Congress doesn't destroy it), NASA was going to get big budget increases to speed up the whole program. They just can't budget or plan for that until they have some reasonable assurances that funding will come through.


Cost plus is a huge problem and that accounts for lots of the problems NASA faces. I honestly don't know how much control they have over that as all of the branches of government make the same kinds of contracts so it may be something they can't change without Congressional approval. I don't know though.

I also agree that they need to open up a more competitive process for the projects they have. The plan they are going with at the moment though is to contract out the smaller tasks (servicing the ISS) while leaving NASA with the task of heading up all of the bigger things like going to asteroids. I'm not sure of the wisdom of this approach, but that's what it is.

Having said all that I'm just pleased that they are progressing, albeit slowly, at all. It's not as bad of a clusterfrak as the Constellation program was and that's saying something. :lol:

Oh I agree with you that most of the problems I note are not really NASA's fault, or at least not entirely. If I am criticizing the agency, it is on the basis that it has become far too timid in the way it deals with politicians; the politicians, on the other hand, have got far more narrow-minded and aggressive in pursuit of their short-term goals. This creates a perfect storm - an agency which takes everything lying down, suffering in silence, and unscrupulous politicians who will gradually destroy it with unrealistic mandates and insufficient budgets.

I do understand that NASA is a government agency, so there is only so much it can do to resist, but there are ways. With a strong leadership at the helm (read as "not Bolden"), the agency can appeal directly to the public (both lay public and the experts) and explain what needs to be done and how, dropping heavy hints that the politicians are screwing things up and an action must be taken to return it to the correct course. Another venue is the President and his administration - with the right kind of contacts and ties there, a NASA Administrator can do wonders (like Webb once did). What I mean to say is simply that NASA should formulate its own mandate - something that is worth doing and can be done for reasonable money in a reasonable time - and push it past the politicians. With any luck, some of it will survive the meatgrinder in Congress. NASA should also attempt to lobby for a more stable budget environment (i.e. make it less easy for the politicians to change mandates and funding every year).

It's not going to be easy, but as one guy once said, we don't do these things because they're easy, but because they're hahd ;)

Edit: oh and NASA striking - lol look up what happened to the FAA air traffic controllers in the 80's who tried it. Not only do they risk getting fired, but public sentiment is pretty anti-union so a strike would turn the public against them. Plus the public is generally uniformed at all on these issues and without a strong public oriented space-lobby there's nothing to stop Congress from destroying NASA in retaliation.

1) That was Reagan, and we know how he was.
2) I know the public in America is pretty anti-union minded, but I suspect that's because most people see the unionists as being selfish and obsessed with their own salaries at the expense of everybody else.
3) NASA is not an "indispensable" service. Its "strike" would be more of a moral protest rather than a disruption of a vital service (such as the air controllers strike was). Maybe I am too "Czech" in thinking this, but over here, if public intellectuals, actors, writers, simply people with some moral credit start vocally protesting against something the government did or want to do, it is a big deal and the govt is usually forced to back down. As I see it, if NASA said "well that's it, the latest mandate is idiotic and the budget is a joke, so find someone else to do this job", the top administration offered their resignations and the major centres went on full strike, refusing to work on political boondoggles, I think it would be a big deal (as in, the media would notice). Now, if it was made clear from the very beginning that this wasn't about salaries or jobs but about what the agency is supposed to do, I think it might at least drive the message home to the politicians that they're not all-powerful and that there are people who actually care about having a decent space programme. They would have to be more careful in the future.

And if they decided to kill NASA instead, well, then they'd have "blood" on their hands and everybody would know who did it, who killed America's space programme, who burned the ships in the harbour in the Chinese Emperor's fashion and let others assume the leadership. Something tells me not even the dumbest idiot in Congress is ready to be seen as that guy.

I'd say the risk is worth it. If the article I posted is correct, the SLS will disembowel NASA. It will be do hugely expensive that nothing else will be done, and in the end there will be nothing to do with it. Perhaps by the time it flies there already will be commercial alternatives costing perhaps 1/20th of the money.

/allright, I am done with talking space politics, it's exhausting and frustrating.

----

Paul Spudis' opinion of the asteroid capture mission:

Interestingly, neither side of the House subcommittee seems enamored with the haul asteroid mission. This development comes just as the agency begins its full court press to “sell” the concept to Congress and to the public. Most notably, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden wrote an editorial in The Hill, declaring the supposed benefits of the asteroid mission. He claims three: 1) conduct a “deep space” mission to give the agency experience in these operations; 2) allow the astronauts to practice “potential resource utilization” of the asteroid; and 3) “inform future efforts” at asteroid interdiction, i.e., to deflect a hypothetical Earth-crossing impactor from colliding with us at some distant date. Are any of these alleged benefits real?

Certainly experience with people in “deep space” operations (in this case, beyond low Earth orbit) is desirable. But such experience is also gained by return to the Moon, voyages to the L-points, NEO rendezvous, or missions to the martian moons, none of which require an asteroid to be procured as a target beforehand. As for “resource utilization,” I applaud the agency’s newly found interest in this topic, having argued myself repeatedly for its importance in creating new space faring capabilities. However, as a target for resource utilization, a captured 3-meter asteroid placed in lunar orbit is not a rich source of anything in particular. Volatile-rich asteroids are known to exist, but are not common and it is not clear than a small object of appropriate composition exists in a suitable orbit for capture.

Even if one is found, asteroid water is not like lunar polar ice. Water in these primitive asteroids is found in a chemically bound form (in clay minerals) and is not easily extracted. The clays must be identified, separated and processed to break the chemical bonds that hold the water molecules in their mineral structures. Such processing isn’t fully understood conceptually and will likely be difficult to accomplish in microgravity (typical industrial chemical processing requires thermal convection and density separation, both dependent on the presence of gravity). Moreover, the Orion spacecraft is neither a good platform for such experimentation (lacking adequate laboratory facilities and sufficient electrical power) nor can it loiter proximate to the asteroid for extended periods of time. At best, a few rock samples might be collected for return to Earth for later analysis and experimentation on resource processing. Oh, by the way, we can get a head start on that work right now – we already have several hundred pounds of meteorites of suitable composition in collections right here on Earth.

The last rationale for this mission, as Bolden describes it, is to help us prepare for future asteroid collision interdiction. One wonders exactly how this mission contributes to that goal. Certainly the act of moving an asteroid is relevant to deflection efforts – but we already know that a force applied to a mass in space will accelerate it (Newton’s law), so there really isn’t any question about the basic physics. There are issues with the physical structure of asteroids, with a porous, incoherent rubble pile being more difficult to manage than a solid, dense rock. But we don’t need to retrieve an asteroid to make this determination. In any event, an Earth-threatening object would be much larger (multiple kilometers) than the asteroid brought back in this effort (a few meters), so the technique of “bagging it and moving it with solar electric thrusters” is not really relevant to the problem of asteroid interdiction. So how will this “haul asteroid” mission help us protect the Earth?

The whole subject of planetary defense has a somewhat nebulous rationale. Despite the recent bolide collision in Russia, which spawned a number of quasi-hysterical press reports, the risk of a life-altering asteroid collision is actually quite low. Check out this diagram from The Economist – your risk of being killed by an asteroid impact is roughly 1 in 75 million. For comparison, your risk of being struck by lightning is about 1 in 500,000, of being attacked by a shark is 1 in 11 million, and being killed in a terrorist attack is about 1 in 20 million. You are actually more likely to die in an asteroid impact than you are to win the Powerball lottery (1 in 175 million). Is it logical or prudent to make asteroid defense an integral part of NASA’s mission, given that its likelihood is of such low probability?

One could argue that focusing on terrestrial volcanism is more appropriate, as the chance of a supervolcano eruption of Yellowstone (which would definitely change the global climate pattern) is about 1 in 730,000, or roughly 100 times more likely than an asteroid impact. But that’s relative to another extremely unlikely event.

Bolden’s attempt to justify the haul asteroid mission is unconvincing. On inspection, none of his supposed benefits are either attainable or (in fact) benefits. This mission concept merely poses as a space accomplishment. It masks the basic fact that we are an Earth-bound species and given this mindset, are likely to remain so indefinitely. There is no sense of creating a permanent, enabling space infrastructure that permits us to imagine and accomplish many different and varied types of missions. Instead, we continue to fantasize about future “space first” stunts, rather than actually doing what is possible and useful. Some would dream indefinitely about cities on Mars rather than actually realizing a true permanent transportation system in cislunar space. The dream of the impossible trumps the building of the achievable. No wonder we have a floundering and dysfunctional space program.

Source


----

On a brighter note, SKYLON's momentum in Europe seems to be growing. The UK govt now seems to have endorsed the project (well, the engines part of it at least) and is pushing for a greater British role in the European Space Agency. During the last UK space conference, the British minister of science and education (or what they call it over there) publicly told the ESA director Dordain that Ariane rockets are the present, whereas SKYLON is the future, thus hinting that perhaps ESA should re-evaluate Ariane-6 and go straight for the next generation of space launch systems instead.

Now, I am not deluded enough to think ESA will actually fund and build SKYLON, but all we need is its clear endorsement. This could finally give the project a green light in the eyes of industry and governments. If Europe could do Airbus to break Boeings monopoly on airliners (and do it the European way, meaning everybody gets a slice of the pie), we sure can do SKYLON to break the coming SpaceX 'monopoly' on launch vehicles. Especially since the development programme shouldn't be much more expensive than Airbus A380...
 
Back
Top Bottom