Re: SpaceX Dragon

Yes, and the way to go after a bunch of NASA money is to increase recurring
costs. Plain and simple, and it works. Using Toxic fuel will probably drive
them up, making development, testing, ground handling, safety more complex
and increase turn around time. Clear the area while we do something with
this toxic stuff. Ops, downtime, clean up that mess. Much higher recurring
costs, and in the end, probably higher up front costs too.

It also limits the multiple use of a heavy item, which SpaceX has been doing
some of, with their innovative Falcon 1. Kerosine fuel and hydraulic fluid,
Helium pressurization, roll control, attitude thrusters. You can't breath
the stuff like other combinations (one that includes Oxygen). So, the
choice just added a bunch of weight and complexity to another separate
system. Handling it in space may also not be the best of ideas, leaks
spewing toxic stuff, which limits another use operationally, offloading
excess fuel and oxidizer at a space station/or space hotel. They might
actually want any extra Oxygen and probably Hydrogen too, might actually be
willing to pay for it. They may not be in the market for deltaV. So, he's
limiting his future revenue streams, along with future business
opportunities.

As activities at a future Space Hotels, Space Stations, Space depots, Space
industries complex, Space junkyards and Orbital transfer facility become a
reality, the usefulness of cryogenic oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, methane,
carbon dioxide (solid) will be obvious. They are simply commodities in a
new Space Market Place. People will probably have to pay to recycle their
excess MMH/NTO, rather than getting payed for their excess Oxygen,
Hydrogen ...

I agree, it's not ridiculous to decide to use the toxic stuff, but makes me
wonder why it's not ridiculous. It's probably driven by NASA and some of
their requirements in the contract. NASA is famous for writing contract
requirements to get what they want, but not necessarily what they need.
They simply need mass transportation and crew transportation to the
Station, but should not be telling them how to do it in the requirements.
The Tar Baby is holding a carrot, grab the carrot and the Tar Baby grabs
you. That why my simplified model of where SpaceX is going has a -1 for
such interactions.

I also agree, it is a bit 20th-century thinking to use it in the
21st-century. But, NASA seems to be stuck in the 20th with their "Apollo on
Steroids", the sequel, exploration plan.

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@xxxxxxxxx
--

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article <1174404573.154964.230580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
are <Proponent@xxxxxxx> wrote:
OK, spaceglobal.com says the propellant is MMH/NTO, same as for the
attitude-control system. Isn't it a bit 20th-century to be using a
relatively toxic propellants like that?

It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. The trouble with MMH/NTO
and its immediate relatives is toxicity, and the resulting handling
hassles. But the good part is that proven, reliable hardware to use them
is available off the shelf.

Pick most anything else, and you may have solved the toxicity problem, but
now you've got to develop a lot of the hardware from scratch. And that's
not necessarily a simple exercise; the alternatives all have their own
special problems, of one kind or another.

So if you were trying to go after a bunch of NASA money -- like the COTS
contract that SpaceX won -- it's not ridiculous to decide that at least
the Mark 1 should use RCS/OMS hardware you can buy right now, even if it's
costly and a hassle to use. It makes your proposal look less risky, and
that may be more important than reducing operating costs later.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Dear NASA Administrator Michael Griffin
    ... interest in commercial fuel delivery to LEO. ... But NASA is building its ... Ares I/V will be *its* launch vehicles. ... so they will never save on fixed costs by buying commercial launches. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: the un-economics of space travel
    ... of energy costs. ... before NASA helped to knock him off. ... this problem with titanium. ... economy and the so-called KSC "economic growth" there, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Manned space flight after the moon landing
    ... >> there were politicians who saw through that and realized the shuttle ... >> for the shuttle program would drop, but NASA's overall costs would ... > projects from a variety of sources, of which NASA was just one. ... "reusability" isn't really driven by economics. ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Lunar Architecture Poll
    ... That is the idea in theory, but this $500 million per launch does not ... include the operating costs. ... the Moon, where an orbital refueling depot would be helpful. ... would cost NASA nothing. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Hydrogen-Boosted Internal Combustion Engines -- Scam Or Not ???
    ... the fuel consumed to produce hydrogen is ... The NASA study was back in the seventies. ... Simply saying it takes energy to produce hydrogen therefore ... Basically you aren't violating any laws - the engine is just running ...
    (rec.autos.tech)