Stern Looks for Way Out of NASA's Budget Squeeze Options

[Littlebit]

Maybe space science could benefit from the Air Force example, where constant technology upgrading is required, but they can't afford to design a new aircraft every couple of years. So they use block upgrades,
where nearly every system is modular and new technology is introduced by more-or-less plug-in modules that fit in the same volume as what they replace. Then you only need a new aircraft design every twenty or thirty years. A few different aircraft for different missions (fighters, bombers, intelligence gathering)--a few different spacecraft designs for different missions (orbiters, landers, rovers).

This makes much to much sense to be implimented.

There are still snags - Venus Express, for example, is based upon a Mar's orbiter design, and is having a miserable time in the heat.

The other big problem is skilled labor: To an extent, a complany like Boeing can move engineers and such to and from military and civilian projects, and different types of craft. Without a completely cohesive plan to retain skilled positions, you cannot shelf all rocket/space mission designs and expect the person who put them on the shelf to still be around five to twenty years later: The small market necessitates retention of skills, ballooning costs.

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

This makes much to[o] much sense to be impl[e]mented.

Why do you say that? The combined flight rate of all interplanetary spacecraft (even in the go-go years of the 1990s and early part of this century) doesn't even come close to making that economically feasible.

[stevesliva]

The combined flight rate of all interplanetary spacecraft (even in the go-go years of the 1990s and early part of this century) doesn't even come close to making that economically feasible.

Agreed.

It'd be an interesting concept to grossly oversimplify the spacecraft... few instruments, far less redundancy, and send a swarm rather than one. But some of the same things that cause catastrophe for one probe can cause catastrophe for a swarm.

[Littlebit]

Why do you say that? The combined flight rate of all interplanetary spacecraft (even in the go-go years of the 1990s and early part of this century) doesn't even come close to making that economically feasible.

There is no reason common bus systems could not be implimented across board for manned, unmanned, military flight, missile and satellite systems: They are all driven by the same environmental constraints: weight, radiation, vibration, pressure and thermal extremes. Everyone has to worry about whether a plastic will sweat, contaminate, and turn brittle. Everyone needs to know if the seal will rot, if the computer will drop a critical byte during an interrupt, or if gamma rays from any source will invade and destroy.

The most useful function I can see for the space lab is an "underwriters laboratory" for new hardware and software designed for used not only in space, but also in military planes and other assets. All of the hardware we are turning loose in space, we could subject it to real space extremes in or near the shuttle, then recovering it and evaluate the aging effects. Yes, these would be expensive tests - but the laboratory is already there looking for something useful to do.

[PhilHorzempa]

Check out Alan Stern's comments in the latest online edition of the "Planetary
Exploration Newsletter." I think that we have a person in NASA's SMD
who is trying to wring as much Space Science as he can out of the funds
given him. He deserves our praise and thanks.

I do have a question for Alan, however - What is the status of the
New Millenium Program? Recently, it appeared that future NMP missions,
such as ST-9, were being pushed into the indefinite future, i.e., they were being
effectively cancelled. Will Mr. Stern try to revive NMP? Are its missions
being re-evaluted for effectiveness and relevance to future Space Science missions?


Another Phil

[nprev]

The most useful function I can see for the space lab is an "underwriters laboratory" for new hardware and software designed for used not only in space, but also in military planes and other assets.

That's a damn good idea, LB! Hopefully Alan or other NASA officials who perhaps may lurk here will take note. Given the ever-increasing commercial utilization of space, it's even conceivable that funding for ISS activities of this sort would be readily available from the private sector.

[stevesliva]

The most useful function I can see for the space lab is an "underwriters laboratory" for new hardware and software designed for used not only in space, but also in military planes and other assets.

ITAR. (Four-letter word)

The US government has made it extremely difficult to commingle commercial and military hardware. They either make everything too secretive, or just wrap it in red tape.

Not only to I not think that NASA and NOAA can afford what the military throws money at, but I don't think the laws allow that technology to spin-off into the civilian realm very easily.

It would certainly be nice if it were easier, though...

How did Clementine work out in the spin-off department?

[Jim from NSF.com]

There is no reason common bus systems could not be implimented across board for manned, unmanned, military flight, missile and satellite systems: They are all driven by the same environmental constraints: weight, radiation, vibration, pressure and thermal extremes. Everyone has to worry about whether a plastic will sweat, contaminate, and turn brittle. Everyone needs to know if the seal will rot, if the computer will drop a critical byte during an interrupt, or if gamma rays from any source will invade and destroy.

There are many reasons why it can't be done. The environment is different, depending on the orbit/mission. Sun synchronous, LEO, GSO, interplanetary spacecraft have different design constraints. Same goes for the mission, A commsat is much different than a earth observing spacecraft. Military vs commercial had different design requirements, Commercial is driven by cost. Manned vs unmanned is another cost trade, there is no reason for the extra work on an unmanned component . Same goes for launch vehicle vs spacecraft components. launch vehicle components have relatively short lives vs a spacecraft.

It was tried for Mars Observer and it was found not to be a viable idea

Missiile are very different from launch vehicles


Also, It is not even done on aircraft. F-15 parts don't fly on B-747

[Jim from NSF.com]

The most useful function I can see for the space lab is an "underwriters laboratory" for new hardware and software designed for used not only in space, but also in military planes and other assets. All of the hardware we are turning loose in space, we could subject it to real space extremes in or near the shuttle, then recovering it and evaluate the aging effects. Yes, these would be expensive tests - but the laboratory is already there looking for something useful to do.

This already exists. there are many testing labs among the contractors and gov't org's and they share the info.
Especially, material research is shared.
it doesn't have to be in space. The environment can be simulated in thermal vacuum chambers

[nprev]

The environment can be simulated in thermal vacuum chambers

I agree with respect to temp & vacuum, Jim, but how about overall (full-spectrum) radiation exposure (including solar flares and other random high-energy events), microgravity, and the erosive effects of atomic oxygen?

I know that, for example, rad testing is also conducted on the ground, but simulation has its limits; nothing like "ground truth" when it comes to testing, esp. if interactive/synergestic effects between all factors are possible.

The ISS is a perfect platform for such tests; the question is whether it's cost-effective to use it as such. I suspect that it just might be for things like new basic materials or small devices like actuators or solar cells; the sample size can be pretty small, and after a couple of years of exposure it can go back during a crew change...sort of an LDEF-light concept.

[Jim from NSF.com]

microgravity doesn't need to be simulated for spacecraft testing

atomic oxygen effects very few spacecraft (only the ones in LEO)

overall (full-spectrum) radiation exposure (including solar flares and other random high-energy events). The ISS isn't going help with testing for Jovian radiation nor Van Allen either

However, I agree with you on using the ISS as an LDEF

[remcook]

"microgravity doesn't need to be simulated for spacecraft testing"

I thought that would be quite important for things like solar panel deployment and I have seen that they use big balloons for that..

[djellison]

Indeed - the ISS is being used as an LDEF platform - the MISSE experiments.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/...SE-3-and-4.html

It's the managerial lessons, the processes, that I think need to be learnt by future PI's in smaller scale projects - not how to build spacecraft (something they don't do anyway)

Doug

[nprev]

Thanks, Doug!

Well, the wheel doubtlessly had to be invented several times before it really caught on...

[JRehling]

There are still snags - Venus Express, for example, is based upon a Mar's orbiter design, and is having a miserable time in the heat.

Why miserable? Venus Express has been operationally smoother than Mars Express. It's got one important instrument malfunctioning, but that demonstrably had nothing to do with heat: the problem first manifested itself shortly after launch.