Reader's Consensus: Develop a new launch vehicle

Those are pretty strong, and some would say offensive words. On what basis do you make such statements? You can't just go off and say stuff like that without being willing to back it up. Otherwise it's called Slander and Character Assassination. So either provide proof the rest of us can check out for ourselves or take it back.

The overall space architecture should include a system of launch and orbital vehicles that will support a trans lunar transportation system as an ongoing and continuous operational capability. One possible architecture for this concept, is a LEO supply, maintenance, propellant depot, and operations station along with an equivalent Lunar operations station or terminal. Then 3 phases of operation will include 1) Earth surface to/from LEO, 2) LEO to/from Low Lunar Orbit ( LLO ), and finally 3) LLO to/from Lunar surface. This will establish a continuous, and ultimately reduced cost, transportation artery connecting the Earth and Moon in support of continuous Lunar surface operations. Once this has been established then projects such as Solar Power Satellites, exploration missions to the asteroid belt and Mars will become much more feasible.

To this end, the current architecture pursued by NASA, as part of the VSE, should be developed as an element of this larger system.

The real problem is that NASA's building its bureaucracy instead of spacecraft. Rather than trying to stretch the Shuttles beyond the budget, they should just buy a dozen Soyuz spacecraft and launchers to fill the gap. Then there'd be time to resurrect the existing Apollo spacecraft. This approach would save billions and billions in development costs. It would save years of down time. It would put America back in space before the shuttle retires. By adding the 4th (and 5th?) seats, NASA could save face by still building "Orion". Or, even better, they could call it "Orion Classic".

@possum

Do you know Pete Worden? He is one of the most caring, innovative, and egalitarian leaders in the space business.

If I had my way…

We would develop one of two options:
Option 1

1. Add a second SRB, side mount both to the Upper Stage.
2. Extend the length of the Upper Stage by n%
3. Air start the J-2X as planned
4. She would look and like a Titan IV
5. Minimal impact to current plan and vendors
6. Minimal avionics/software impacts
7. Existing infrastructure can support this
8. Keeps NASA in the development lead
9. Ends many problems

Option 2
1. Use the Atlas V EEVL as a core stage
2. Use the Ares 1 Upper Stage as a second stage
3. Air start the J-2x as planned
4. Minimal avionics/software impacts
5. Allows a smaller LAS
6. Major impacts are flying from CCAFS, ends use of LC 39 for many years
7. Make NASA dependent on ULA

ISS was/is in the end about learning how to build, maintain and crew large structures in space.

Going back to the moon is about learning how to live, build, and maintain crewed systems on the surface of another world.
3 days to home is safer than 3 years. The moon needs to be a critical part of any program beyond LEO.

Look at Ares V again in 2012.

CxP is being killed by the current Ares 1 configuration. It can be fixed, jobs saved, the program pushing forward.

Alter Ares 1 now while we have time and money to do so.

There's an important ideological difference between the utilization of commercial launch vehicles, like the EELVs and NewSpace efforts, and NASA developing its own internal launch capacity, like Direct or the Ares family of vehicles.

One maintains NASA's monopoly over servicing its own human spaceflight launch needs. The other opens up that large launch demand to the American commercial launch industry to fulfill, companies that must compete to service that large market. That competition can spark innovation in a way that a single government mandated launch vehicle cannot.

NASA's internal launch vehicles are stagnation, and a commitment to stagnation for the next generation. The large launch demand inherent in a lunar mission will spark a drive to compete to service that payload demand by the American commercial launch industry. Such a lunar mission architecture is a road to continual improvement in the state of space access over time.

So, I would say that NASA is at a crossroads. It can the continue the status quo of the past 40 years, where NASA locked itself into a launch vehicle that became the driving priority of the agency at the expense of other priorities. Or it can choose a path that sees NASA removing itself as the mandated provider of its own launch needs, instead becoming the customer of the American commercial launch industry, becoming the spark for the drive for progress that has been largely absent from the state of the American space effort.

That is the difference, that is the once in a generation choice we face.

Hello,

what I’m still missing: There are a lot more ideas in your bookshelves. NASA had to learn the hard way that the single stage to orbit will not be possible for the next decades. That does not mean at the same time, that these expandable firework rockets are the only solution. Some may remember ALSV from Boeing or MAKS, the proposal of the Russian engineer Lozino Lozinsky. Some may remember the ideas from von Braun or Saenger about reusable spaceflight vehicles to be designed for future spaceflight. Future astronauts should not only be specialists in adventure, but just scientists, engineers, people, just entering a plane to go to orbit and than changing the vehicle. The shuttle has been a compromise. Why not just to learn from what has gone wrong and make it better? The industry most times prefers the easiest possible way to earn money. NASA would not have become NASA doing the same. But where is the courage today, where are the visions?

Frank's note: I know it's not the popular thing, but building the ISS has taken many years of courageous spacewalks by many astronauts. And although you may quibble with the VSE, it is a vision - a vision for the future of humans in space.

I'll be very disappointed if we end up with an expendable ballistic reentry capsule for LEO ops only. If we stay in LEO, I'd like to see a next generation fully reusable RLV. If we go back to capsules, I'd at least want to see humans return to the moon!

This is crazy. no I change my mind, it's surreal. Let's hope this kind of thing has no effect on the development of Constellation.

The basic problem as i see it with Ares I is not its premise but its mass, (GLOW) and the thrust /weight ratio using the J2x on 2nd stage. This is causing the M&P folks to have to pull out all the stops on using relatively new mtl and processes ( common bulkheads,large one piece spun form domes FSW etc) to make US & Orion fit in the perfomance box that J2X has put them.
Id prefer they simplify life today and focus on what we know works and start out using an ssme for the 1st 10-15 missions and then come out with a block change / light weight version with a J2x if it can fit the profile . That buys the engrs time to develop robust next gen processes, and gets the risk way down on meeting cost / schedule deadlines using tried true mtls & processes now. Cutting edge is great but not in all facets of a time/cost critical project. This also allows them to get into an ops tempo quicker and ring out the 1st round of issues that will inevitably come with that just like we had on SSP in the early 80's... remember those days lest we forget ...i do i was there... it also synchronizes the critical skills so their utilized evenly between Ares I then onto V not peak over peak as is now the case.
Mr. Augustine will select the correct mix of skill sets to perform the study. He is savy, and a very good judge of character besides being decent man. Im not losing any sleep on that at all, let him do the job.

Here's my opinion.....as relevent (as is everyone's else as a fart in a tornado.)
The Augustine Panel is NOT about architecture.....Ares vs Direct vs EELV. Wake up....it's fundamentally about whether the US will or will not have a MANNED space program. Let me repeat....this is the bureacratic exercise to justify the continuance OR elimination of the MANNED segment of NASA fiscal expenditures. Again....to beat a dead horse, it's about whether the US will remain in the MANNED space arena or cede to Russia and China....and re-direct limited resources to robotic surveys, both terrestial (i.e. Climate Studies) and exo-planetary.

It's a pivotal point in US space efforts....stay tuned....

Bill
St. Paul, MN

We, as a space faring community, are in a deep hole. How we got there is not what should be discussed. Let’s help by simply sharing concentrated and realistic ideas that don’t involve science fiction that help us achieve the immediate objective of getting out of this hole. When you are in a hole, all you really care about is getting out, period. You do the basic things necessary with the items and capabilities at your immediate disposal. It is important to realize the difference between science fiction and space reality is focused on the cost concerns by decision makers who fund space activities.

The space goal reality is that we want to build a rocket and if we are not funded to do that, then we would settle for simple human access to space by safely extending launches. The current and primary need for access to the ISS is to replace the bone depleted crews that have been up there for six months with a fresh set of crews who have fresh bones to dissolve for another six months. This is the primary limiting factor in getting out of this hole. The experiments allowed on the ISS are all about finding something that helps people on the ground. This is a bait and switch method of getting what we really want, i.e., human access to space, so we can claim a permanent-type human presence in space. Any decision maker would gladly accept this achievement as they have in the past, countless times. This masked goal of finding solutions for the primary benefit of ground-based people needs to change to support a more realistic and cost effective view of permanent human presence in space. The allowed space experiments are cost limited, i.e., we want something to happen for practically nothing just so we can get human access to space. If the goal is changed, which will take decision maker pressure to make it a reality; we should look for a way that safely extends human presence in space that has yet to be attempted in space. Only after achieving that goal can the spinoffs appear which can be utilized to justify us helping ground-based people with physical limitations such as Osteoporosis and cancer. That's what spinoffs mean. Space spinoffs historically occur as a result of pursuing the primary goals of getting in space.

If we begin striving to find a way to extend human presence in space cheaper than what it is being done for now, we may all eventually agree to go more strongly in that direction.

1) Book as many Russian flights with astronauts as financially possible to solve the immediate problem of retaining existing human access to space during the gap. We already have a history of relying on the Russians to help us in the past. They are number one on the list of entities able to reliably and cost-effectively achieve human access to space. Commercial space ventures are only a means used to generate competition for access to space. If they are successful, which we all hope and pray for, we all will benefit from their successes. History shows that getting to space has always been extremely difficult, however.

2) While that is being accomplished, we install a human-rated artificial gravity exercise device in the ISS that safely utilizes the crew’s exercise time in such a way that we begin showing initial results that show artificial gravity application in space is an effective countermeasure to bone loss. This is a high priority on the bioastronautics roadmap. The reason it is not number one is the fact that current space experiment limitations preclude them from trying it in space. This can be cheaply and safely achieved using careful manipulation of existing shuttle flight manifests, exercise device expertise, and serious detailed system analysis, design, test, and construction.

3) As the limited bone loss data points build over time, so does the thinking. To start really thinking about it seriously, all you need is one astronaut or cosmonaut willing to commit to perform the artificial gravity activities in a safe manner on a daily basis for six months in the ISS, which by the way has been successfully demonstrated using real people in ground-based facilities.

If we find a way to stop or limit bone loss for long duration space inhabitants, however impossible it sounds now, we can some day allow the astronauts to stay in space longer than six months, if they and their flight surgeons agree it is safe enough for them. This decision will some day effectively change the rate of human access to space per unit of time which lowers the annual cost of launching humans into space to change out the bone depleted crews.

If we don’t find a way to stop or limit bone loss for long duration space inhabitants, due to the space access hole we are currently in, we may someday face the stark reality that the day will come when no entity with unlimited funding can access the ISS due to whatever reasons which may lead to the abandonment of the ISS. If we wait to see the results from lunar outpost extended excursions, we increase the health risk to these crews compared to finding the solution in a relatively close-by space-based laboratory built to house such a proposed experiment.

@Joe

I could not agree more, why NASA decided Life Science was not NASA Rocket Building for CxP it became a slush fund to support cost overruns of ESMD/CxP.

Now if we can get back to thinking about experiments on ISS this would be great. I hope building a spacecraft that departs from ISS to a Moon or Asteroid and Returns to the lab with Crew becomes a notion that is accepted as valid. The parts for such a spacecraft can be lofted by the spaceshuttle or by the new Miltary Heavy Launch capability.

They DO not need to be launched from Florida if we do not use the Spaceshuttle.

The people who cannot think about this as real are going aways soon.

Spaceport's Tourist Launches Are Drawing Closer To Reality
Tuesday, 28 April 2009 15:28
By Rene Romo
Albuquerque Journal APRIL 19, 2009

TRUTH or CONSEQUENCES — A decadeslong vision that once seemed closer to a Buck Rogers fantasy than a real-life economic venture is nearing a countdown in the southern New Mexico desert: Groundbreaking for Spaceport America is tentatively scheduled for June 19.

By December 2010, anchor tenant Virgin Galactic plans to fly its first passengers to the edge of space, and public and private advocates hope that's only the first stage of the spaceport's future.

Virgin Galactic, a bold venture of British businessman Sir Richard Branson, plans to whisk paying civilian astronauts 62 miles above the Earth's surface in a two-stage process.
A double-hulled mothership will carry a six-passenger, piloted capsule to an altitude of 48,000 feet. The released capsule will rocket on into space for a four-minute, free-floating view of Earth before gliding back to New Mexico.

Virgin Galactic's ticket price is $200,000 per person, and hundreds have already paid for the trip or placed deposits. They will prepare for their flights at the publicly financed, $198 million Spaceport America on a 28-square-mile swath of desert about 30 miles southeast of Truth or Consequences and 40 miles north of Las Cruces.

The spaceport, designed to blend into the desert landscape, lies on the edge of the famous Camino Real, where oxcarts were once the state of the art in travel technology.
Now, Branson's partner, Bert Rutan of California-based Scaled Composites, is in the latter phases of developing the two-stage Virgin Galactic craft that will take off from a Spaceport America runway. Glide tests of the passenger-carrying SpaceShipTwo are expected later this year.

Gov. Bill Richardson's administration, which brought in Branson as the chief tenant and put the spaceport on the launchpad, has said the project will "transform the economy of southern New Mexico."

The spaceport, Richardson has said, "will be a magnet for space companies to bring their businesses here, which will send a message far and wide that we embrace entrepreneurs, adventure and innovation."

Great potential
Steve Landeene, executive director of the New Mexico Spaceport Authority, said that flying deep-pocketed passengers to the edge of space is just the start.
"This is far beyond just tourism," said Landeene, who has tried to spread the message that technologies used to carry passengers will have other applications — scientific, commercial and military — which can, in turn, spin off other business and expand economic opportunities.

For example:
• The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration has signed an agreement with Virgin Galactic to do atmospheric sampling, Landeene said.
• The military could eventually use the technology for rapid deployment of forces around the globe.
• Project boosters envision spaceport tenants hosting low-cost launches of satellites into near-earth orbits for the military and other customers.

best

I am disappointed that the editors of NASA Watch chose to post the derogatory comment regarding Pete Worden by 'possum'. While I realize that respecting freedom of speech is an important part of this blog, the comment in no way had any probative value in the discussion. It was entirely negative and disrespectful.

Editor's Update: My mistake, the poster had comments approved previously which were not derogatory and this one got through without a serious look. It's been removed.

@Libs0n

So, I would say that NASA is at a crossroads. It can the continue the status quo of the past 40 years, where NASA locked itself into a launch vehicle that became the driving priority of the agency at the expense of other priorities. Or it can choose a path that sees NASA removing itself as the mandated provider of its own launch needs, instead becoming the customer of the American commercial launch industry, becoming the spark for the drive for progress that has been largely absent from the state of the American space effort.

You need to first understand there is a considerable difference between the Space Shuttle system and the Constellation program. STS was part of a transportation architecture which NASA implemented back in the early 70's. NASA did so because that was the only remaining part of their original plans that survived the budgets cuts of Congress and the Nixon White House which NASA could afford. And that was the worse possible part of the plan for NASA to pursue because it ignored the fundamental and historical roles that government played in the development of transportation systems. However, NASA had no other real options. The result was a shuttle system that never met its goals and became political cash cow for politicians

Today, NASA is on a path to retire the Space shuttle and is funding COTS and eventually COTS D to foster commercial cargo and crew transports to the ISS. So far COTS is funding two fairly successful ventures that have made a great deal of progress in developing cheaper launch systems. But this program would not be possible without the ISS and an established market for cargo transport. Similarly ELVs and EELVs exist because there is a market demand for them outside of the federal government which provides steady source of revenue.

On the other hand, the Constellation program is derived from an exploration architecture. The launch system and vehicles being developed are travelling to new horizons or places where there are no established outposts. No company can willingly develop commercial heavy launchers of sufficient capacity to launch missions to the Moon or Mars. Why? Because there are no established markets on which they can develop a steady revenue stream and there no other custmomers outside of the government who could afford the price tag. The federal government and NASA in particular are notoriously fickle customers. Many space technology companies have come and gone when government funding for their development project was either cancelled or dried up.

NASA even tried partnering with aerospace companies to develop better launch system. And in each case the project got cancelled. So developing its own in house launch system to meet the needs of its human exploration program is really the only option for NASA at this point. And guess what? Exploration is what NASA is best at. NASA proved that with the Apollo program, the Voyagers, Cassini, and etc. Hopefully the review will be able to settle what is the best option for continuing to pursue human exploration.

Gary Miles,

The basic supposition that you have is false. Returning to the moon does not require heavy lift. The majority of the mass that any lunar mission comprises is propellant, largely liquid oxygen. Unfuelled, the actual lunar hardware, the lunar lander as well as the transfer stages, fall within the payload range of available or modestly upgraded commercial vehicles, like the EELVs. The Orion will already fall within that range.

The heavy lifter puts all these things in the same boat at once, at the expense of the cost to develop and maintain a heavy lifter, and the opportunity cost of not using that large demand to stimulate the commercial launch industry. There is, however, an alternative, one that can be more quickly fielded, can enable more expansive lunar missions, and can be that stimulus toward a better tomorrow. That solution is to build the equivalent of a gas station in Low Earth Orbit, using technology based upon the existing second stages of the EELV vehicles.

Imagine the idea of the propellant load of a lunar mission separated from the hardware that will utilized it. The launch campaign for this propellant can then be conducted separately from that of the lunar hardware, and can be divided and put on the lowest cost launch option commercially available. That fuel will then be stored on orbit until sufficient quantity exists for a lunar mission. The launches of the Orion and lunar lander would then occur, on existing or near existing commercial launch vehicles, where they would dock with the orbital fuel depot to fill up their tanks and the tanks of the upperstages of the launch vehicles that brought them their, for the journey to the moon.

This demand of propellant would dwarf the existing payload market for launch vehicles. Initially serving that market would utilize production overcapacity in the EELV lines, lowering their price for both NASA and in competing for the global launch market. Competition for that significantly increased launch demand would over time spark a revolution in space launch access, as new players try to get and keep a stake of it.

This idea, of a gas station in orbit, is the most cost effective and quickest means of reaching the moon. Instead of spending NASA's budget on a heavy lifter, a considerable financial proposition in both its development and operation, modest sums can be spent instead on enhancing the upperstages of the EELV lines, and on a depot based upon that work. More money can then be allocated to fielding the Orion capsule and the lunar lander, finishing that work sooner. Of further synergy, the LOI and descent stage of the lunar lander can also be based upon the upperstage technology, reducing the cost and complexity of building it as well. When that work is done, NASA is ready to go, and can take advantage of potential lower cost launch systems like SpaceX's Falcon 9 series from the get go.

Asking NASA to utilize the commercial launch industry is not asking that industry to build an idealized launch vehicle that would otherwise be useless, it's tailoring the launch plans to the commercial industry's strengths, in this case existing, reliable, and cheap LVs compared to NASA launch vehicles, and relying on the capitalist drive to service that new launch market to bring costs down further. That is the future that NASA can help build, or deprive from us by not building.

NASA already does this for its science missions, like the scientific exploration missions you credit them for. NASA purchases flights on commercial launch vehicles, as they offer the cheaper and more convenient option than NASA performing the same service in house. The ideas I've proposed would have them take that successful strategy of leaving the launch vehicles to launch vehicle experts, and the spacecraft payloads to NASA, in the fulfillment of their mandate to explore the moon.

This isn't the NASA of 50 years ago. Today, launch vehicle expertise lies within industry, who have built successful LVs in the past decade, and who are building launch vehicles now. NASA has not successfully built a vehicle since the Shuttle; their myriad efforts since then have all been failures. It's time to admit the jig is up, that NASA should not be in the business of building launch vehicles, but should stick to where it's strengths lie, in the building of spacecraft that explore the solar system. The American commercial launch industry can be NASA's partner and enable NASA to realize its aims, and NASA can be the difference between a stale and moribund market, and the type of payload market that will spark a drive to improve the state of American space access. The world of tomorrow has to be built with the steps taken today, the steps taken by NASA.

Bill, that's incorrect, the panel is about whether or not the direction of the manned space program is on the right track. With the problems with Ares I (people can deny them all they want, they exist and the timeline is quite underwhelming considering a nation which went to the moon in a decade of its challenge) and with the problem of the wasteful spending necessary to build an ISS-style moon base, it has undoubtedly required reconsideration. The likely outcome, in my opinion, is that Ares I will be recommended to be scraped if X does not live up to its potential, and a recommendation toward a DIRECT/Jupiter based system with the moon base idea scrapped until the space program can advance to a point which makes it workable (my opinion is to use Direct/Ares/Jupiter or whatever heavy launcher they come up with to send robots to the moon to build a base remotely).

The manned space program is not in jeporady.

perhaps with a bit more emphasis on Mars over lunar outposts. The original VSE called for use of the moon only as a technology test bed to develop the systems that can take us further into the solar system. Since the departure of Admiral Steidle, that seems to have been deemphasized-a big mistake, in my view. I think my friend Buzz Aldrin is spot on in his missive to keep our “eyes on the prize” and not get locked into another moon race with the moon as the primary destination.

Frank,

Your perspective of the Vision is the same as most of NASA’s.

With all due respect to you and Buzz, the “original VSE” called for the use of the Moon to create new spacefaring capability. How is that different from what you say above? Basically, it is the difference is between landing a few times on the Moon to check off a box before going “on to Mars” or living and working on the Moon, including using its resources to create and extend a reusable, refuelable transportation infrastructure, to allow routine access to any point in cislunar space.

Both President Bush’s original VSE speech and White House documents emphasized learning how to use the material and energy resources of the Moon. This was later elaborated upon in a significant speech by John Marburger at the Goddard Symposium, where he outlined a lunar return that is much more than simply a martian test-bed. Marburger argued that the purpose of the Vision was to bring the entire Solar System into our economic sphere. In order to be sustainable on a long-term basis (well beyond the horizon of Congressional budget cycles), we have to learn how to use the material and energy resources of space to support the exploration of space. This is an up front, long-term task that ultimately permits not only the exploration of Mars, but all of the planets of the Solar System and for a variety of purposes, both economic and scientific.

One of the reasons we’re “stuck” in low Earth orbit is because the rules of spaceflight are iron-clad and awesome in their difficulty. We live at the bottom of a very deep gravity well. The Vision changes those rules. By not having to lift millions of pounds of dead mass out of this deep gravity well, spaceflight becomes easier and cheaper (most of the mass of a million pound Mars spacecraft is propellant).

The problem with your and Buzz’s interpretation of the VSE as “Apollo to Mars” is that first, it is simply beyond the existing engineering state-of-the-art (for example, we do not even know in principle how to land a human spacecraft on Mars) and second, from a strategic point of view, it is a “flags-and-footprints” dead end. Why would anyone want an Apollo-style Mars mission – after the first few landings, it would be abandoned, just like the Apollo infrastructure was. Because in the long run, such an architecture is not sustainable, economically or programmatically.

We go to the Moon to learn how to live and work on another world. At a minimum, this requires a long-term, if not permanent, presence. Unless we break the tyranny of the rocket equation, we will always be mass and power limited in human spacefaring capabilities. Mark well, this suits many people just fine – they like the idea of a limited space program, one in which they decide the activities and programs. And one that is wholly dependent on Congressional largess. A sustainable space program offers unlimited possibilities. That means learning how to use what’s in space to create new capability there.

None of this is science fiction; most identified lunar resource processing is simply 19th century industrial chemistry. And the sooner we get started, the sooner we become a true spacefaring nation.

Frank's note: Paul, my friend, my view is that under the leadership of Mike Griffin, we have seen greater emphasis on lunar permanence than in developing new and more advanced space technologies to test at the moon. In fact, nearly all of the budget funds for ESMD technology development have been slashed and redirected to salvage the Ares program and elsewise. Buzz's observation-that a permanent lunar base-has been met with yawns from the public-is valid. if we want to motivate a new generation of young Americans to study math and science, Mars is the ticket.
Yes, it is true that a manned expedition to the Red Planet currently lies beyond our capability. But, Paul-isn't that the whole point of space exploration-push the envelope?

@Gary Miles

You're spot on. To me it appears the proponents to scrap Ares 1 and Ares 5 are pretty much the same ones who also oppose Human Spaceflight except a few token excursions to LEO.

It's not NASA's job to bail out ULA, who's effectively outpriced itself from the commercial launch market and for business has to rely on government customers that are not allowed to shop elsewhere. If there is overproduction then it's time to get rid of one of ULA's lines altogether.

Frank --

my only quibble is with your headline. Using EELV means we don't have to "develop" a new Crew Launch Vehicle.

- Jim

Frank's reply: Jim, any EELV that would be tasked to lift Orion would require substantial mods (manrating, more powerful upper stages, pad mods, etc.) hence my license in calling such a lifter a "new" vehicle...you are right, and me too!

@libs0n

Until the cost of space launch system drops below $1000/pound a fuel depot concept is beyond cost prohibitive. At this point, launching payloads from the Earth's surface is far cheaper. A fuel depot can only be profitable if there a number of destinations for manned spacecraft to fly to. No such spacecraft traffic exists at the present. Also, the criteria for safely launching fuels into orbit would have to be stricter than the current HRR criteria for human transport.

@The editors

Thank you

NASA should turn over lifting astronauts to LEO to the commercial side, and dump Ares I. Require ULA to pay for human-rating their Atlas and Delta vehicles in exchange for an anticipated 30 years of sales (the current life of the Ares I). Save time by starting with the existing vehicles and only do those process steps required to upgrade them for human rating. The cost of purchasing launch capability will be driven down by competition when the SpaceX Dragon capsule comes online. So costs will come down, ULA will pay for a significant chunk of the development, and the commercial side will drive innovation in a way that NASA cannot.

At the same time take the NASA resources that are currently going into Ares I development and go right to creating the Ares V to support missions to the Moon, an asteroid, or Mars. The work that has been done on Ares I becomes a learning experience: recapturing how to design and build a rocket all the way from the hardware to the software. Ruthlessly apply those lessons learned and the Ares V development will go _much_ smoother.

Wow. I leave for a couple of days and I miss a lot. OK, I'll throw my 2 cents in... horizontal launch. Maybe not in this architecture, but working toward it. For this architecture, something that doesn't hum itself to pieces on the way to orbit.

Coming in late on this one...

May I comment on the title? NASA is a lot like Apple Computer - Apple is famous for it's operating system, that is what has sold it's computers. But they make their money off of hardware sales. They have gotten into trouble over PCI cards, clock speeds, USB, etc etc. NASA is an exploration agency that somehow spends most of it's time on launch vehicles. That was understandable back when they were being developed, and we could not wait for commercial companies to develop the boosters we needed.

Now we are in a different age - hopefully NASA will buy commercial boosters and put crewed modules on top of them. In an ideal world - develop one module and two adapters. One for Atlas and one for Delta. Fly people on both, and requirements dictated.

Aircraft were largely developed by and for the military, with two world wars as catalysts for advancement. But today, commercial airliners introduce new technology before the military.

Maybe this would allow NASA to spend time on what they are intended to do. Explore.

Who should be on the Augustine Panel? NOT John Young! He is a sniping critic, the author of many Poison Pen letters. I would like to see Gary Payton - works for DoD but is retired Air Force, flew as the first DoD payload specialist.

Frank's comment: Gary Payton, whom I covered extensively when I was editor of the newsletter Military Space, would be an excellent pick for the panel. Thanks for suggesting him!

I think that the recent article by Michael Huang at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1370/1 on the Space Review is spot on. I hope that many of you will take the time to read this report. Very few reviews have ever been set up unless the results were already known. I believe the current administration wants to cut manned spaceflight to the bone in favor of cheaper unmanned missions. Augustine is well know for wanting to reduce (or eliminate) funding for manned spaceflight and putting him at the head of this commission proves that the report's results are already expected by our administration.
You can vote for any form of VSE you want, but any change of direction that the commission suggests will only be a go signal for the administration to cut funding to manned spaceflight and delay any national spacecraft until the next administration.

To throw my centavo in here.....

There is a simple reason that I advocate the Shuttle C architecture even though it is not the most efficient solution. In bullet form here ya go.

1. Lift capacity.

Not bad. According to a Shuttle C Chart that I have, the bird can put 179,400 lbs into a suborbital (30 x 200 nautical mile) trajectory, which is a good one for slinging a payload to the Moon. This was with the ASRM. With the Al-Li tank and with a few of the modest SRB upgrades that are already being built for Ares 1, the lift will equal or exceed this. That is enough to put a two person lander into lunar orbit with the appropriate upper stage.

There is also the ability to build several different variations of the Shuttle sidemount for things like propellant delivery to LEO or large hardware to ISS for the Reusable Space Vehicle or other purposes.

2. Existing Infrastructure

The STS infrastructure 95% exists and not only the hardware but the teams, the the polices and procedures, the entire STS system is in place and with few modifications can be used.

3. Cost

The original study for Shuttle C was one billion dollars which was confirmed by another independent outside study done. With inflation we could have still had the Shuttle C flying today rather than Ares after four years. The cost of the SSME's? Yep, but again, we don't have to go back to square one and with the $tens of billions of dollars just for Ares 1 development we can buy a heck of a lot of SSME's. There is also still the possibility of the recovery of the engine pod that should be traded.

4. Schedule

No matter how many times the Direct guys claim it, there is no way that the schedule for an entirely new launch vehicle is going to be much better than what is going on with Ares. The paperwork is as much of a problem as anything else and that is why the Shuttle C works, a lot of that is in place.

5. ISS Support

The Shuttle C can support new modules, spares, or anything else that the station needs. Direct cannot do that without a lot of modifications to the payload carrier. This is a major issue with our European and Japanese partners. Using the ISS as a linchpin in the architecture has many benefits as well.

6. International Support

With the Shuttle C and ISS, we can bring in the Internationals that have been singularly uninterested otherwise. My sources tell me that all of the International partners are demanding ISS support and that without that U.S. support for the station, they will not support human exploration. With that as a core value we get the Ariane V, the HII, the ATV, the HTV, and the other infrastructure that our partners have built. All of this supports the ability to integrate the RSV into the architecture, and with the Shuttle C delivering the lunar lander to LLO, we can implement this far faster than the cost of building an HLV to deliver everything directly (and cheaper). Also with the internationals we would have the ability to send medium class (2-4 ton) payloads directly to the lunar outpost to build up capability and to have frequent resupply. This brings the Atlas, Delta, Falcon 9, Proton, and other vehicles into the mix as well.

7. Advanced Technology

With the Shuttle C, we have plenty of cargo space to send up a large ion propulsion system to ISS. A 500-800 kw system would easily fit in one launch. This would allow us to have an ion cycler for heavy payloads to extend the architecture and private enterprise could build it.

My two cents

Developing yet another launcher with limited customers (1) is a dead-end. Look what happened the last 5 years with Ares/CxP - lots of money spent with almost no results. Developing a new, non-commercial launcher is going to keep failing because of simple economics.

If there is going to be a NASA-led human space endeavor beyond ISS then they should have to use and encourage commercial launch vehicles with a launcher-neutral strategy. Most of the material lifted will be propellant - it doesn't matter if that is flown on Atlas, Delta or Falcon.

By separating payload from carrier vehicle, it does not matter who goes out of business or who enters - the client can choose the best ride for the occasion.

I just want to not be left with a cape that is rusting away! Buses rolling by full of kids being told how we blew it!

Is that so wrong?

Why is it so hard for some folks to realize that we need to have humans in the seat. The flat earth vision change that accrued in the mid stream of the 2008 campaign smacks of a unreal road to Damascus conversion.

Please don't allow this opportunity for review to become a spin/talking point collection party for cancellation justification of a generational dream.

We all have ideas of how it could be done better. The trick is to not let the snake talk us into a apple that kills the dream.

We need robots as a vanguard! We need human spaceflight to insure that the pool always has a back-up!

Carl

NASA has to do much more to stimulate New Space development toward manned rating. We have 2 companies that are well on their way in their development of COTS A-C, but COTS D is largely unfunded and the little money that has been funded, will NOT bring a commercial manned rated launcher on line.

Ares 1 and 5 are bank busters, that will leave little money left for true exploration. You can already here talk of downsizing Orion and eliminating the moon base. For a fraction of the money being spent on Ares, NASA can create a full COTS D competion. Look how far New Space has come, with just a $500 million investment for COTS A-C. Where else in space funding, can you get that kind of return on such modest funding.

Once upon a time, a seven year old boy sat transfixed in front of his television set watching the grainy image of a man in a bulky, white space suit step on to the surface of another world. That man was Neil Armstrong taking his giant leap for Mankind. That boy was me. That night, NASA inspired me by demonstrating that dreams can become reality. The Apollo explorations of the Moon proved that a future imagined can be a future realized. Apollo took a boy’s spark of interest and turned that spark into a guiding light that illuminated his path forward, just as it did for countless other “children of Apollo.”

In 1983, that path brought me to work for NASA, and my dream of being part of the exploration of space became a reality. And I have been living that dream for the last twenty-five years!

NASA, the United States and, indeed, the World have reached a crucial decision point. Earth is a finite resource. It is threatened by Man. It is threatened by Nature. Already, we are experiencing the impacts resulting from the depletion of natural resources, and the impacts of our existence on Earth’s biosphere. No matter how well we conserve, the Earth’s natural resources will continue to be depleted. Once the cup is empty, it cannot be refilled.

We stand at a fork in the road. Do we continue on the path we have been following, or do we take the one less traveled; the path that leads Humanity on its first true steps from the cradle of Earth out into the Universe. If the United States and NASA are to lead Humanity down that bold, new path, then NASA must spark another guiding light, illuminating a path leading to the future. Just as they did from Apollo, new generations will find THEIR paths illuminated by that same light. They will carry that torch forward, continuing to light a path for successive generations that will follow. The path forward is generational and on-going. Of course, the technological developments made along the way will be applied to benefit those who remain at Home, but those inspired by the light will forever look outward.

But, I believe that NASA, as it is currently structured cannot do this. NASA has lost its way. Politics, infighting amongst the NASA centers and a serious lack of open, objective and trustworthy management across the agency at all levels have tarnished NASA’s reputation, its capabilities and its vision both internally and externally.

A sustainable vision for NASA must have, at its core, a goal. A simple, straightforward goal unencumbered by political rhetoric. NASA actually has that goal already; it has simply been forgotten.

The Space Act of 1958 states, “…that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.” That is NASA’s true goal; that its endeavors be for the benefit of all Mankind. That goal should be the centerpiece of everything that NASA does.

If NASA is to “benefit all Mankind”, it should be challenged to:

Insure the sustainability of this planet for the benefit of the human race. NASA should focus its technological savvy on energy independence, applying technologies developed for space exploration to benefit Earth. Solar energy systems (passive systems and dynamic systems), nuclear systems, fuel cell systems are examples of such technologies that, properly applied and deployed, could give us the energy independence we seek.

Second, NASA must assure the survival of the human species by beginning the process of moving Humanity off this planet.

Science fiction? No. Something achievable in the near future? No. But if the process is not started now, given the technical hurdles that will have to be overcome (many of which we probably don’t even fully appreciate yet) the human race will go the way of the dinosaurs.

Starting one program and ending it only to be able to fund another, does not define a sustainable program of exploration which will begin the expansion of Humanity into the solar system. A truly sustainable vision for space exploration is one that combines the strengths of NASA, the other space agencies in the world, the commercial space industry and academia in a true partnership that goes beyond contractual or political agreements.

I strongly suggest that NASA be reorganized and restructured to support the goal and visions stated above. Concomitantly, NASA funding should be increased to permit the agency to fund the activities outlined above. That may mean a sustained, yearly NASA budget three or four times higher than its current level of funding. Given the magnitude of the federal budget, even a fourfold increase in NASA funding should frighten no one.

With the increased funding, NASA would be providing new, high-tech jobs both in the Government and the private sector. The United States needs these high tech jobs to reinvigorate interest in science and engineering. NASA, focused in such a way, would be a beacon of opportunity for this country, employing thousands of individuals across the country, funding small businesses to develop new technologies, inspiring science and engineering education, and inspiring the country the way it did during the Apollo program. There is no down side to increasing funding for NASA, provided its leadership is focused and determined and accountable to the basic goal of NASA.

Frank's note: I'm sorry, Jeff, but there is no political or legislative consensus to fund NASA much beyond the current $18+ billion per year-and that is often pushing the limits. This is why NLS, ALS, X-33 & X-34, Spacelifter, DC-X, NGLT and SLI have all died a quiet death. That is also why the VSE needs Shuttle retirement-because that's the only way to pay for it.
Think I'm wrong? Take a look at the Obama NASA budget for the outyears beyond 2011-all funding for heavy lift or lunar landers has been cut. Which strongly suggests no more moon-no chance at Mars....

I found the artical "Spaceport's Tourist Launches Are Drawing Closer To Reality" by Rene Romo very interesting. In it, she talks about New Mexico building a "Spaceport" with $198 million of publicly financed money. Compare that, to the almost $300 million that Florida has spent on lobbyists. Perhaps Florida should look into ending lobbyist spending and use that money for space development.

Robots vs. humans: I love Zubrin's wisecrack that we still don't have a robot that can walk out of the house, get into the car, drive to the local store and buy a bag of apples, much less get back home. For all the great research the mars robots have done over three years, the truth is astronauts could have done it all in less than two weeks. On the other hand we have guys like Elon Musk saying at first he can get spaceflight under $600 a pound who come back three years later and admit that it was wishful thinking. We all want an optimum human spaceflight program, but when you add the word sustainable in there...things get difficult

Hi All,

One point to keep in mind with any system using Shuttle elements is the Vehicle Assembly Building. One good category three Hurricane near it and it will likely be gone and with it the core of your launch system. That was a gamble worth taking when you were looking at the time line for Apollo, but for systems that you intend to have operational for a generation that is a substantial risk. Especially as recovery will require years. Not good if you are supporting a lunar base or using it to explore Mars. If you want a launch system to be sustainable you need to also make it robust so one strong hurricane doesn’t shut down your program.

Given that I do like the Shuttle C as simple, quick and affordable for heavy lift cargo. Add to it a capsule on the EELVs and you are ready to go to the Moon and perhaps beyond.

Tom

@Mr Simko

In case you have not read, America's Spaceport is in New Mexico being built now.
http://www.spaceportamerica.com/

California FULLY supports this activity as spaceport California is now the first FAA spaceport to reach suborbit flight with the X15 way back when.

The folks in Florida are working on USAF property trying to create a public spaceport thinking "We are the only one that can launch Humans into Space"

This is not only laughable but it is absurd. That is correct, Florida we do not need your help to do anything, Stay away please! The jerks in spaceflorida are playing Purchase influence in Washington via the Congressional Reps and are failing in the efforts. I could not be happier that the commerical Spacetransportation business is taking place beyond Florida and is doing just fine and dandy!

Fundamentally we need:

1. a permanent and hopefully continuously growing manned facility, or facilities, on the moon. This will tell us if humans can truly survive in a 1/6 hypogravity environment and if we can utilize lunar resources for human survival. A permanent lunar facility could eventually be one of the most profitable investments in the history of humanity if satellite repair, manufacturing, and launching eventually moves to the lunar surface.

2. to launch a rotating variable G (0.1G to 1.0G) space station in low earth orbit to see how well humans adjust under a simulated gravity environment.

3. develop a SSTO 'people' shuttle. NASA made a mistake by trying to develop a SSTO vehicle that could carry 20 tonnes or more into orbit when all we need is a reusable SSTO vehicle that can carry only 3 to 6 tonnes into orbit (6 to 12 human passengers plus human life supporting infrastructure). Massive payloads into space should continue to be launched by unmanned multistage rockets. Easy access to orbit for humans through SSTO vehicles, however, will rapidly open of the New Frontier for human colonization and commercialization.

4. start manufacturing and constructing light sails at L5 or lunar orbit for transporting interplanetary vehicles and for accessing asteroid resources. Building light sails of ultrathin aluminum could open up the rest of the solar system for humanity. How hard can it be to build giant aluminum kites in space?

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/01/space-frontier.html

Many good points in the postings above. The following sites provide what seem to me to hold the most hope for long term advancement in space. There needs to be a mechanism for recognizing exclusive personal or corporate property rights in space, a mechanism for granting several hundred thousand acres or sq miles of Moon/Mars, etc., to any entity that colonizes it within a defined set of criteria, number of people, length of stay, economic activity, free access, publicly traded, etc., much like the railroad initiatives of the 1800's where the baron's could take the prospect of large financial gain, highly speculative at first, but maturing over time, and using it to raise capitol through stocks, bonds, etc.. Eventually we could all own a real piece of the Moon by investing in stock. Motivated by elightened self interest, the new push into space would be self perpetuating. Setting up the land grant program, run through some international treaties, etc., would set up a new space race and land grab. There are more than likely some very valuable minerals on the Moon that could be very profitable. Those who got there first would get the best parcels. Heck, the governments could even start taxing the Moon enterprises and space exploration could become a money producer instead of a money sink. And maybe the Moon might eventually break away and become it's own sovereign entity. The competition on the Moon would be similar to the exploitation of the New World by the world powers in the centuries past. Possession is 9/10s of the law though, so that if we don't actually get up there, if we only invent technologies that the Chinese or the Russians use to get up there, then all we'll have is the technology, but they'll hold the land. We need to start the land rush and we need to get our people and companies right in the middle of the action. Yes we need technology, but just as important, we need to actually do something with it. We need to motivate the VSE with goals that excite the other part of the tax-paying public that would be more interested in more down-to earth interests such as increasing opportunities for discovering new resources to exploit. G-wiz and exploration just for the sake of exploration only brings you just so far, as the general public apathy towards VSE shows. We need exploration AND development motivated by good old fashioned “greed”. Hopefully the blue ribbon panel will address this part of the problem as well.

http://www.spacesettlement.org/

http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/

I thought that I would drop this little poll result here. On Daily Kos website, Vladislaw, a daily blogger, posted a poll asking this question, "Do you believe being able to and live work in space is a species imperative?" Of the 291 repondents who voted 76% of them said yes they believe that becoming a spacefaring society was an imperative. This was not a scientific poll and the vote is limited to one per user, but considering that the website is for liberals and progressives, the result is very encouraging. So there appears to be strong support for manned space travel on the political left.

Paul & Frank, you're both right...

We need to keep selling 'em Mars (and all the other destinations) while we establish a sustainable solar system exploration infrastructure by using lunar exploration and development as our learning sandbox. Mars is too big a step, and if we try it initially the attempt will be too on-the-cheap just to get 'something' done, leading to flags & footprints (and quite likely disaster).

If we can gradually master the smaller, closer, more conservative challenge of sustainable operations (science, & commercial in its wake) on the lunar surface, mounting a sustainable Mars surface exploration program (and exploration of other destinations) by human crews will then be a much smaller challenge, since we'll have in our possession a substantial exploration experience base, along with the technical innovations that came about as we accrued that experience base.

The MOST substantial challenge remains engaging the public with the excitement of the task and keeping them interested. Merely choosing Mars as a destination will NOT achieve that; the public will become just as bored just as quickly-likely sooner, even before first touchdown-as they did with Apollo.

Moon or Mars is as false a choice as human or robot. Space exploration & exploitation-real space exploration & exploitation-has always required both, on both counts.

@Frank

I didn't read a consensus, but do have the following concerns with your list:

John Young
Pete Worden
Paul Spudis
Elon Musk

1. Republicans or democrats? Repubs have already mismanaged CxP & misspent the funds they already received & seem to have a preferred interest in Texas & Alabama workforce, not so much the Florida Shuttle workforce. (Fla has a Shuttle on the back of it's State Quarter - anybody else?). Be wary of taking any republican at face value on policies that result in lowered Florida workforce.

2. Astronauts in general are respected by the workforce for their astronaut skills, but are generally perceived as just frontmen spokeperson types that are lacking real knowledge about launch vehicle design or production or operations or management, so their input on such things may be considered as more theory than practical application.

Also, test pilots by nature just want a new thing to fly - so they may have a personal bias. Although John Young's participation in Safety panels & his Apollo + Shuttle experience seems to make him the most worthy - but don't know enough about his politics as to whether he has a bias for CxP vs. Shuttle vs. something else or both.

3. Spudis doesn't seem to have any real manned space flight or successful rocket design or operations experience, so doesn't seem to be appropriate for this panel.

4. Musk & SpaceX haven't succeeded with launching satellites or ashes yet, even with govt. subsidy, so he really wouldn't have any useful input yet about vehicle design approaches (besides his alleged tempertantrumish personna).

In general, recommend panel members consist of mostly retired NASA & USA management and/or chief engineer types, from both JSC & KSC Shuttle to fill the panel.

Ones that worked both Apollo & Shuttle might be best. They're the only ones with real & successful manned space flight experience.

DC types are mostly theory, a whole lotta talk but not much to show for it types.

gary miles,

The content of your reply to me is flat out erroneous. Vehicles delivering propellant to the depot would not have to be held to more strict standards than those that carry human beings. The opposite is true: standards can be relaxed if desired to allow for vehicle systems that have lower reliability in exchange for lower launch cost. An example of such would be Space Systems/Loral's Aquarius launch vehicle, which was a proposal for a lower reliability but low cost launch system for cheap payloads like fuel. A video of it and its operation can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEHawjnn4Ak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-Mko5sC5yM

I never proposed the independent development of fuel depots. I proposed their creation for the specific task of being utilized in NASA's return to the moon. That market is large enough alone to serve as justification for using a fuel depot. That market would be so large, several times the payload mass of the existing market that American launch companies cater to, that it would spark an endeavor to compete for it the likes of which has never been seen in the space launch industry.

The price figure you pull out of your hat is not a necessary precondition either. The fuel depot/present commercial vehicle concept for fulfilling NASA's lunar missions simply has to beat the cost of the alternative. Given that the alternative is the creation, production, and operation of an entirely new heavy lift vehicle at the hands of NASA, it will. It will do so using modestly enhanced EELVs. It will do so using SpaceX Falcon 9 series launchers when they come online. It will do so in spades after ten and twenty years of a 300mt+ a year payload market that is catered to by an ever evolving American commercial launch industry.

That is the one simple thing that must be realized. The future can have those 1,000 dollar a pound or less launch systems, and the spacefaring economy based around them. But before that future comes into existence, the realities of the current small launch market must change to enable it. NASA has in its power the ability to create that future by using the once in a generation opportunity of the large payload demand of a lunar mission to spark a drive to constantly improve the state of space access. The alternative is another 20-40 years of expensive space access, and the limited extent of our spacefaring economy and civilization because of it. It's your choice. Your NASA built heavy lift vehicle, or progress for mankind in the quest for more affordable space access.

You can't have the second without taking the steps necessary for it to become future reality. Getting NASA out of the business of servicing its own launch demand, and getting industry in, is the step that needs to be taken if the future is going to be largely better than the way things are.

Lowly Contractor,

Where do you get off maligning people who hold criticism over the Ares approach as being opposed to human spaceflight beyond LEO? These past two threads have been filled with people wholeheartedly opposed to Ares, but wholeheartedly in favour of accomplishing the lunar missions through better means. Show me all these people opposed to Ares because they are also opposed to further human spaceflight.

The EELVs were built for the express purpose of meeting the DOD's launch needs. This they have done, and will continue to do for the foreseeable future. NASA's launch needs too, in its scientific missions, which have been successful conducted. No one is proposing a bailout for them. I only propose the utilization of their existent capabilities for their own sake in better meeting the goal to return to the moon, and for the sake of bringing about the improvement of the commercial launch industry and its ability to compete for new avenues of expansion. This, as the federal agency of note for space, is NASA's duty to pursue, not building it's own launch vehicle operations and depriving the commercial market of that consequential lunar payload demand.

Is it fair to have someone from ARC vs. someone from KSC or JSC on board? Should there be equal Center representation on this panel?

The EELVs seemed to have be more then sufficient for the OSP when its was the Shuttle replacement program before VSE. Its a puzzle why they are now non-suitable for VSE.

In regards to Pete Worden I did not recommend him because he happens to be from ARC but because of his extensive experience before ARC in the USAF. The fact he happens to be at ARC at the moment is incidental.

KSC or JSC on board? Should there be equal Center representation on this panel?

By all means write to Rep Delay and Sen Nelson for a discussion of equal balance. Being appointed to such a panel you have to show by process and practice your independent thought.

What's all this "build solar sails from lunar aluminum" talk? This is one step less absurb than "build and launch spacecraft from the Moon". We can launch solar sails we'll need for the forseeable future right from Earth where they can be made, tested and QAed in proper facilities.

The infrastructure to get to the point of making a lunar shipyard or smelting facility is 1000s of tons deployed on the surface - it's decades away. Compare to our already building and deploying inflatables from Earth.

@ Josh - What's all this "build solar sails from lunar aluminum" talk?

Long term goals are needed to drive short term activities.
In order to be effective and use limited money, resources and man power to the fullest, the results of the shorter term project are more effective when part of a larger vision. For example, the space station started out as a way point for for supporting other activities in the earth/moon system, but then, after much time and politics, the objective was forgotten and it morphed into a laboratory. The space station would be much more useful if it was a component of a larger system as aposed to an ad hoc public works project.

I think it would be a good idea if Orion could be launched on two or more different rockets rather than being dependent on just one launch vehicle. But I have some doubts about using Atlas 5 or Delta 4 heavy versions for manned launches. If any one of the three common-core engines suffers a non-catastrophic failure, would it be possible to complete the mission by using the other two? More engines equals a greater chance of something going wrong, but the Saturn-style cluster of 5 engines fed from a common fuel tank seems to me to be more robust than 3 engines fed from 3 separate fuel tanks. Can fuel/oxygen be transferred from one CCB to the others on Delta 4 or Atlas 5 in the event of an engine failure? I'm not a rocket engineer, so if anyone can enlighten me about this issue I'd appreciate it. Could a single Delta or Atlas CCB with a cluster of 6-10 GEMs launch Orion, with or without the J2X second stage?

@libs0n

This is not about 'maligning' but, rather, putting things in proper persepective. Eliminating Ares V, or equivalent (be that an Ares IV, or Ares VI), spells the end of human spaceflight beyond LEO as was already demonstrated early in the Apollo/Saturn era when they realized it'd take a dozen or so Saturn 1 and 2 launches to assemble a vehicle in orbit that could do the job of a single Saturn 4 or 5.

Sorry, but one or two human missions to LEO per year is to many of us a far cry from 'wholehearted support'. Also, all those so eager to scrap Ares V, and Constellation plans should reflect on whether the agency would continue getting $20B per year absent such objectives. The European Space Agency has done just fine as far as robotic missions and science goes with just $3B per year. Seriously, some people need to be careful what they wish for because someone in Congress might begin to wonder whether $3B/yr for 'robotic missions and science' is enough and, thus, free up the remaining $17B for other agencies.

There have, of course, been very important achievements by NASA since Apollo (Galileo, MER, Cassini, Hubble, etc) but my concern is whether it has been ~$700B worth in cummulative (and adjusted to 2009) funds since Apollo 17.

What is really sad is how far down NASA has fallen. There are some smart folks still there. When i was there leading a team to develop human rating requirements we were making progress and improving systems engineering, risk management, program management, and requirements clarification. All critical for success. Unfortunately, a few people under Griffin seemed to care more about personal gain versus appropriate application of tax dollars and designing the safest and most reliable vehicle for our astronaut heros and for America. I hope this commission has some people on it that really understand what it takes to accomplish the challenges ahead. I am not overly convinced this will happen based on experience. During ESAS, there were at least 4 better designs than the Horowitz/ATK launch vehicle design and I am sure several more that i was not aware of due to limited hours. As a 20 year veteran of NASA and a 50 year space buff this all hurts to the core. Would love to help that commission get it right.

Quote:

"Also, test pilots by nature just want a new thing to fly - so they may have a personal bias. Although John Young's participation in Safety panels & his Apollo + Shuttle experience seems to make him the most worthy - but don't know enough about his politics as to whether he has a bias for CxP vs. Shuttle vs. something else or both."

John worked very close with the contractors, (Along side the late Guss G.), during the planning and testing of the first manned Gemini flight. This included much more than a few visits to the manufacturing plant.

John was right in the middle of the review process and redesign of the block I Apollo after the fire.

As for shuttle, He was the first commander, and that should say it all for guts/ability/professionalism, (Man rated by being the man)! This is not to take anything away from Robert's contribution to the first flight.

He is a engineer, and as the head man at the astro office, has the mission planning and equipment training/integration experience that no other member proposed so far has.

I say that a space cowboy who is a real cowboy needs to be at the table.

The next generation of astronauts needs to have a old bull on the hill to watch out for the herd in the field.

Carl

Lowly Contractor,

If you're going to use Apollo as sacrosanct example of what will occur, then the heavy lifter itself will lead to the end of manned spaceflight beyond LEO as its budgetary expense proved to be beyond what the nation was willing to allocate to NASA. If the lunar missions are canceled it will have been a direct result of NASA's decision to build a gargantuan heavy lifter and a second launch vehicle of dubious merit over the existing commercial alternatives, a choice that sucked up all the available funding and will take more than a decade to show any appreciable results. If the lunar missions are canceled the blame will reside with those who sought to use them for their own ends of building internal NASA vehicles for accomplishing NASA's launch needs. The VSE was a mandate to explore the moon in a sustainable manner, not a license for NASA to go on a launch vehicle spending spree.

The Ares 1 and the Ares V are but an implementation strategy to accomplish lunar missions, one that both has exorbitant costs and little return until more than a decade of time and tens of billions of dollars have been spent, and high operational cost thereafter. This isn't the sixties. There exist within industry organizations capable of meeting NASA's lunar launch needs with the existing or near existing commercial launch vehicles and lunar exploration strategies based upon them. Such an implementation strategy will both cost less to develop and bring results sooner than the task NASA has allocated solely to themselves. Switching to that strategy will accomplish the mandate of exploring beyond LEO, and since it inherently can bring about reduced costs over time, is more likely to survive to do so and continue to do so and beyond.

Switching to a more cost and results effective implementation makes lunar missions more likely and keeping them more likely, while staying on the Ares 1 and Ares 5 road puts that goal in peril. You have it ass backwards.

@libs0n

The demise of Apollo had very little to do with 'affordability' as we saw, for example, with Apollo 18 and 19 (and their already built hardware) being cancelled to save a grand total of $50 million (!), missions like Skylab B, Skylab 5, several nearly finished Saturn IB's, and other hardware and facilities simply 'abandoned in place' and left to rot. The Skylab 1-4 was a minimalistic follow-on to give a pretense of an "Apollo Applications Program". Reality was much more simple: VP, and then President, Lyndon Johnson was the real force driving the space program and brought continuity over 4 presidential terms. President Nixon, as VP under Eisenhower (which we can thank for nixing the US becoming first to space, but that's another story), and then as President, could pretty much care less about space. Also, history shows how a new administration usually starts by eliminating the pet projects of their former political adversaries and space became its first casualty. Later in his life, however, in an interview with Time former President Nixon did at lesat admit his mistake in not pursuing a Mars Manned mission for 1981-1983 like NASA had proposed. The added cost would have still been marginal when compared to the GDP.

I'm not going to buy promises of 'better launchers' until we're shown what these are. I can go either way on Ares 1, but as for Ares 5 it's the only real project we have and it already uses well proven technology ... similar SRBs to the Shuttle, same 1st stage engines as Delta IV, a very realiable and tested J-2 engine for the upper stage, and a standard two stage + solid boosters configuration without the Ares 1 complexities or asymmetric concepts like Shuttle-C. It simply doesn't make sense to outright dismiss Ares 5 as an insurmountable challenge.

Vehicles like Shuttle-C, Direct, or Jupiter are overkills for commercial payloads or an Orion-class spacecraft (as we learned from the Shuttle experience), while underpowered for attempting to go beyond LEO without multiple EORs and complex assembly procedures. Trying a one size fits all approach usually results in something that's really not that good for most missions.

Sorry, but I'm not going to 'drink the coolaid' on this Griffin-bashing trend.

Josh, a-- space manufactured-- 10 kilometer in diameter light sail capable of transporting hundreds or even thousands of tonnes through interplanetary space would weigh about 20 or 30 metric tonnes.

So it shouldn't be too difficult to launch aluminum from Earth to L5 or lunar orbit for manufacture. But it will be cheaper, in the long run, to get the source aluminum from the moon rather than from the gravity well of Earth.

Launching thick prefabricated solar sails from Earth would be too heavy to carry large interplanetary payloads. Especially manned interplanetary space craft that require substantial mass shielding.

Lowly Contractor,

I would not say the Ares 5 is an insurmountable challenge. I would say building the largest launch vehicle ever attempted by man, and the development of it by an agency with no recent successful launch vehicle project expertise, will be a very expensive proposition at best. Perhaps a bridge too far for what the agency's taskmasters will expect in terms of reasonable results.

I would most definitely say that it is the wrong path for the federal agency of note for space development to be taking, that it represents a colossal mistake and a closing of the door on an opportunity to improve the state of space access, a development that will benefit NASA and its goals as well as mankind as a whole. The Ares V will take away the large lunar payload demand from industry, and take away the future that opening up that payload market to competitive forces would bring to us all. Anyone who wants to see progress in the space field, progress leading to a more fruitful and expansive tomorrow, and not just jobs for NASA employees, or a shallow fulfillment of a lunar mission without any real gains beside expensive government capabilities, should be opposed to what the Ares V will represent as well. A mistake that confines mankind to this earth, postponing the development of mankind as a spacefaring civilization, when instead it could have laid the groundwork for that realization. When instead it could have built a legacy for all mankind.

Marcel, Brian,

IIRC the serious solar sail attempts (one Progress mod, one Japanese unit, the Planetary Society's Cosmos I) have all used aluminum/gold coated Kapton for the reflector, not just aluminum. AL doesn't have the tensile strength at millimeter thickness that plastics do (never mind rip-stop designs).

On top of the material difference there is the issue of upfront/sunk costs. You can fly hundreds of solar sails built and integrated on Earth before the space foundry produces it's first square meter of aluminum. This is a fundamental flaw in the idea of launching a factory to build something - it's very bad long term planning to go broke before initial operational capacity.

I'm all for manufacturing sails etc in space, when the time comes. We have a lot to do in terms of ground-integrated payloads before reaching that goal.

Anything Shuttle C can do an inline version of the same launch vehicle can do better (see the ESAS appendices for the gory details).

Shuttle is going away for good. The minor nicks that the shuttle TPS got on this month's Hubble mission ought to remind you why. With shuttle being retired, Shuttle C is not the way to go. There are many more examples of inline launch vehicles flying than there are offset designs like shuttle.

DIRECT does things the hard way. Instead, put 6 SSMEs under an external tank and lift at least 60,000 lbs of payload straight to LEO:

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_experiment.shtml

No exploding solids, nothing new to develop, and the entire vehicle enters orbit also, just in case you can think of something to do with it later :_> Spend some effort and perhaps the engines can be recovered. For manned flight aborts all the engines shut down (unlike solids) making the required escape rocket smaller.

Of course this would leave thousands of employees at MSFC and certain contractors with nothing to do, so it would be very difficult. It might even take a Presidential Commission to set NASA down this path...

Josh, the Drexler type of space manufactured sail would be only 0.1 microns thick. Thus this type of sail would be more of a film than a foil and aluminum sheets would probably have to be sandwiched and glued between a mesh (perhaps made of ultrathin fiber glass threads) before being rigged to a huge but extremely thin solid metal framework.

The fiberglass mesh, metallic frame, and raw aluminum (20 to 30 tonnes per 10 km sail) could probably be prefabricated on Earth before being sent to a space based light sail manufacturing facility. The hardest part will be-- mass producing-- ultrathin aluminum sheets from the raw aluminum. We already know how to make aluminum film on Earth only 0.1 microns thick. But whether these techniques or a microgravity technique could be efficiently utilized in an automated space factory is the question.