Daily Space Policy Reaction

the study is asked for,
A great scene from the ending of Dr. Strangelove
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9ihKq34Ozc

"The kinds of people and the kinds of jobs that build a rocket to put a man on the moon, are the same kinds of jobs and the same kinds of people who build missiles to defend this country,"

What is really needed is a way for engineers in their 20s and 30s to gain experience developing complete systems with a full design process from conception to operations. Ideally, they would be mentored by older experienced engineers. Upgrades and retrofits to existing systems don't provide this. Canceled programs, also, do not provide this. Otherwise, very soon, there will be no one left with the experience and capability to provide lead systems engineering on new projects, programs and systems with in the US. This is a current and growing problem, but, is only important to the degree that technological superiority, or at least technological parity, is important to the US. A Vibrant, Open, Space Program will/would go a long way to achieving this goal.

NASA already did a study that showed that showed that the Sidemount plus an EDS could be developed for less than a third of the cost of the Ares I/V architecture. DIRECT advocates have made similar claims.

But the cost of a new Constellation architecture and its operation could be further reduced if:

1. NASA fully funded an HL-20 space plane program instead of the Orion. Congress rejected the development of the HL-20 because they didn't want to spend a measly $2 billion to develop it back in the 1990s. That would only be about $3 billion in development cost in today's dollars. Add a MAX MLAS to this for perhaps $1 billion in development cost and we're ready to go for just $4 billion in development cost.

2. Forget about developing the Altair ascent stage and just develop the Altair hydrogen/oxygen descent stage and use it for both ascent and descent during manned missions and as a cargo transport during unmanned mission. For manned missions, just replace the ascent stage with a simple lightweight habitat module for safely shuttling astronauts to and from the surface.

And there are a lot more ways to significantly reduce the developmental and operational cost of the lunar architecture, IMO.

Marcel F. Williams

Let's see - there is 2-3 years to get an ET for a new STS launch, with folks sitting around at $2.4B a year waiting for it, while killing $2.4B/pa a year of cutting edge R&D and other activities at NASA. Then there's wait for up to three more commercial expert companies to fly crew, in about 3 years, and greatly reduced costs, and jump in process and technology, while NASA moves back to working on the cutting edge and preparing for human flight deep into the Solar System. Which one counts as uninterrupted flight, and which one is more worthy of the US? Hmmmm. Yeah, thanks, Bill Posey, awesome first option there.

"...conduct a 30-day study that would find ways within NASA's proposed $19 billion budget to 'ensure uninterrupted, independent U.S. human space flight access,' according to a letter outlining their request."

I'll save them the time and money of the study: There is no way.

A 30 day study - that is too short for a group of politicians to invent something. They can however pick a plan invented by someone else and put their own name on it.

Time to write your 2, 5 and 20 year plans for NASA and space exploration. So the committee can pick it.

I wonder if any of these congressmen know or care how stupid they look when they act as if the gap is a new development.

There has been an answer for at least 5 years staring us in the face. NASA and USG have spent the time studiously ignoring or denigrating that solution. Soon, the hardware situation will make that solution no less expensive than ARES. As intended? I think so.

What is funny to me is that everyone (shuttle workers and congress) knew shuttle was going away and were OK with it because there was Constellation.

Now, both are scheduled to be cancelled and instead of just fighting for Constellation (which they could probably save if they just fought for one program) they now want to save Constellation AND extend shuttle.

I think they want everything. They won't/can't get everything though. It seems like they are pushing even harder for Shuttle than Constellation.

That seems a bit odd to me but maybe it's just the way I am reading the headlines lately.

Had they just been smart and let shuttle go as planned, and fought for Constellation they would have probably won. Now, who knows. I guess they just don't know when to pick a side...

"It seems like they are pushing even harder for Shuttle than Constellation."

Maybe they are pushing for Shuttle because they actually read the Augustine report and other independent sources about Constellation.

Well, maybe.

However, if the existing shuttle manifest is stretched out into 2011 and the spare tanks currently available (but not expected to be used under the current schedule), then the gap between last old and first new tank could be as short as six months. All it takes is a slower flight rate and re-juggling of cargoes.

There is a potential fly in the ointment though. Simply put, it isn't worth the while to do this if you are only going to build a half-dozen more tanks for an extension of SSP. It only makes sense if you are also going to be using the tooling and workforce for a directly-derived SDLV, nothing else. That, IMHO anyway, is the key issue to decide. If D-SDLV isn't going to happen, then the money spent on shuttle replacement would be better used on developing the Payload Bay Shroud, an EELV payload adapter that lets them carry shuttle-style payloads.

"Then there's wait for up to three more commercial expert companies to fly crew, in about 3 years"

That's assuming the commercial companies can deliver on that promise. There's no evidence to support this and is more likely to be 5 to 10 years, the earlier for LM or Boeing and the later for new companies such as SpaceX.

People keep mentioning the feasibility of the HL-20, but, to date I'm not aware of, nor have been made aware of, any high fidelity testing or analysis of the HL-20 on any launch vehicle. If someone knows of any, please let me know.

And, if people are not aware of any such studies, please lets drop the whole idea of the HL-20, one that is capable of carrying people, being built with only a few billion dollars.

"People keep mentioning the feasibility of the HL-20, but, to date I'm not aware of, nor have been made aware of, any high fidelity testing or analysis of the HL-20 on any launch vehicle. If someone knows of any, please let me know.

And, if people are not aware of any such studies, please lets drop the whole idea of the HL-20, one that is capable of carrying people, being built with only a few billion dollars."

Here's what's currently going on with the HL-20 concept:

http://www.sncorp.com/news/press/pr10/snc_hstp.shtml

http://www.spacedev.com/spacedev_advanced_systems.php

http://www.spacenews.com/venture_space/100201-biggest-ccdev-award-goes-sierra-nevada.html

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/HL-20.html

I'm aware of what you posted. I'm also know some of the people who did the original aero on the HL-20 and I'm aware of some of the wind tunnel data. I'm not aware of any high fidelity test or numerical analysis of the HL-20 on a launch vehicle.

Quoting from

http://www.spacedev.com/spacedev_advanced_systems.php

"In parallel, SpaceDev has signed a memorandum of understanding with United Launch Alliance (ULA) and is evaluating man-rating the Atlas 5 launch vehicle and configuring it for use with Dream ChaserTM to provide a launch configuration based on the exceptional heritage of the Atlas family of launch vehicles."

Sounds preliminary.

OK, the dCN/dalpha(rad) of a nose is about 2 based on the base area at subsonic speeds and increases to about 3-3.5 at supersonic speeds. Looking at their picture (the one of the HL-20 mounted on an Atlas V), http://www.spacedev.com/spacedev_advanced_systems.php, the HL-20 clearly provides more dCN/dalpha than the nose it is replacing. And the CN characteristics vs. Mach number between a nose and a lifting body can be very different. OK, possibly not a problem at low alpha. However, what is the abort envelope? And, how well can the control system and structure react to the loads produced by the HL-20. After all, there was the talk of the Ares bending modes. And lets not forget nonlinearities and unsteadiness/buffet that the HL-20 on top of a titan might have.

By comparison, the X-37 will be launched on an Atlas V and will be shrouded because of aerodynamics. The dimensions for the X-37 are 27 1/2 ft long and 15 ft wide. The dimensions for the HL-20 are 29 feet in length and a wing span of 23.5 feet.

Now, I'm not up to all the latest details so I don't truly know, and I'm not saying it can't be done, but my experience is making me skeptical. I want to see proof, not talk. And, until then, I see lots of $$$$$.

"What is funny to me is that everyone (shuttle workers and congress) knew shuttle was going away and were OK with it because there was Constellation.

Now, both are scheduled to be cancelled and instead of just fighting for Constellation (which they could probably save if they just fought for one program) they now want to save Constellation AND extend shuttle."

Over the last year, several aspects of Constellation and Orion became clear, as a result of program changes, pronouncements and 'requirements' updates, and especially through the Aerospace and Augustine investigations.

The program and requirements changes resulted in the vehicle no longer having nearly the capabilities it started with. And don't forget it had previously been downsized, its capacity restricted, and earth landing capability deleted. Orion could no longer carry the full crew. The booster could no longer boost it to orbit and the Orion now had to use ts already severely restricted and previously reduced propellant stores to boost itself into orbit.

Really what became clear was that the program had failed to establish and meet any hard requirements and that booster and capsule were chasing one another in circles.

The expense of every launch became clear and each launch of the 4 person ocean landing capsule was going to cost well in excess of a $1 billion, meaning that even just an orbital flight of the small, underpowered Orion capsule was going to be as expensive as a Space Shuttle mission is today, and yet would have far less capability or capacity. You'd basically be stuck repeating the Apollo 7 mission for 10-20 years after the Orion started flying regularly. You'd only be able to afford two Apollo 7s each year. This was pointless. Even Apollo 7 was only flown one time.

Particularly illustrative of the failure of the program to manage costs was the expense associated with the Ares 1X. The costs associated with that 2 minute boost to 20+ miles was as much as the marginal cost of an entire Shuttle mission. Everyone wondered why it was of significance and the program manager was unable to give any good rationale.

What the independent investigations showed was that even the more pessimistic schedules being identified by the program, for launches in 2015-2016, could not be met and it was likely the vehicle would not be usable until 2019.

Constellation management and program PR kept acting as though they were going to the moon by 2020, but what became clear was that those folks were living a hallucination. In fact they were hallucinating wildly enough that it was really detracting their focus from the near term task.

As we heard how the program would skip over design issues in order to try and clear program milestones, Program management was no longer believable. The fact that even now the Orion PDR has not been closed, after more than five years, points out that the design is not yet resolved. That means that no one is quite certain they know what is to be built. We have heard so many times they are nearing closure that many wonder what should be believed.

So the last year has meant a great deal in terms of how little confidence anyone has in the design approach or the management.

Everyone has repeatedly been surprised by sudden revelations.

As faith was lost, a lot of people started crying that the Constellation Program had already, previously, lost sight of the Visions' original goals. So even if Constellation could have landed someone on the moon in another 25 years (the earliest it was likely to be able to happen) they would have been doing nothing more than a repeat of Apollo, which meant no one was certain why we were going in the Constellation direction at all.

You had an Administrator who's reputation as the world's foremost rocket engineer was on the line, so he was unwilling to admit that what he had directed could not be done. You had managers who were afraid to speak up honestly, for fear of their positions.

Only since the Augustine report, was delivered less than 6 months ago, did it become apparent that Orion was offering a system and capability that, even if it could be made to work which people now question, really did not do the job that was needed immediately and did not do the long term job. Many of the Constellation, Orion and Ares 'huggers' refuse even today to believe this.

If all e had to go on was simply a paper report, then you might question the honesty of the report, but the fact that the Program has failed to demonstrate virtually anything after 5 years, means their is no confidence.

And on top of that, we are now down to the last few Shuttle flights, which means the Congress and the taxpayers were basically blind sighted by inaccurate and constantly changing reports of progress on Orion.

That it took so long to establish what the Orion would be capable of doing meant that no one was even aware until the last 6-9 months that it could not meet basic program goals.

So US HSF is in a true crisis and no one is quite sure what to do next.

As the Shuttle Program Manager discussed, if current Shuttle systems elements are used as the basis of a heavy lift cargo booster, then, and only then, would it make sense to continue Shuttle. But continuing Shuttle is something that comes at a cost, and it will take some time to restart the 'new' missions.

Orion makes little sense since in its current state, it really cannot support the program and even if it could be flown more quickly, NASA would not be able to afford to operate it because of the high costs.

If we build the Shuttle-C or a variant, then the question becomes, what will we be launching. It would make sense to develop manned sortie vehicles based on the ISS architecture, partly because those designs are already developed, and partly because they were designed from the outset to match Shuttle capabilities.

This does mean moving away from the moon as a near term goal or as the next step. There are a lot of people, particularly people who were involved in Apollo, who want to see us send people to the moon again, but even with all the money we could use, it is unlikely that will happen for another generation. Even that would take $10 billion more than what NASA has been getting annually.

We need a logical sequence based on where we are today. That is likely using Shuttle and ISS derivatives as the next steps.

Add Lovell to the growing list of astronauts against this mess of a plan.......

"The BBC reported Jim Lovell, commander of the Apollo 13 mission, said Obama's decision would have "catastrophic consequences" for U.S. space exploration. "Personally I think it will have catastrophic consequences in our ability to explore space and the spin-offs we get from space technology," he said.

"They haven't thought through the consequences."

Houston, Obama has a serious problem.

American space heroes are lining up against this to a degree that I have never heard them speak so much in unison against anything before.

Notably, it appears that Neil Armstrong, who was also present with Lovell and Cernan on the tour this past week, did not find fault with the Obama decisions. If you take a look at the 40th anniversary discussions last summer, it appears all of the A11 crew were firmly behind Mars as the goal, rather than going back to the moon first.

Here is an excellent debate on whether the moon, Mars or someplace else makes the most sense:

http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/07/nasas-next-frontier

No doubt where the public weighed in, and they have to foot the bill. I think NASA is supposed to be a knowledge creation organization, so logical technological developments in a step-by-step approach is what will get us to Mars. NASA needs to be developing the capabilities.

The shuttle is an incredible machine. But it is sorely lacking in one capability. Beyond low Earth orbit. Obama's ready-fire-aim plan doesn't look like it's going to pass congress. Even if it does, even his plan defines Mars as the destination. Additionally, the shuttle's side-mounted design is flawed and dangerous. It's time to let the shuttle go. It's consuming a large amount of resources and stands in the way between where we are and where we want to be - exploring beyond low earth orbit.

"It's time to let the shuttle go."

That was the idea 6 years ago. But there has been remarkably little progress in replacing Shuttle in that time period.

At the same time, Shuttle is flying as well or better as ever before. Based on all the discussion of risk and safety, Shuttle is likely as safe or safer than any other vehicle during their first several fights.

Its well known and has a large contingent of expertise that is well developed. Which is a key for building any future system, and is a key to maintaining employment levels.

And now that the previous Administrator and his plans for 'ditching the mistakes of his generation' is no longer in vogue, we've come the the realization that Shuttle is a far more capable system than anything else now on the drawing board.

And as long as ISS is flying, ISS and Shuttle were made for one another.

The Shuttle system and ground infrastructure is a huge investment that is available now and full use should be made of it for a derived heavy lift launcher.

At continued levels of funding, and based on Constellation's estimated costs, we will not have the ability to do lunar or Mars landings for at least a generation.

Its time to turn the basics, like capsule launches into earth orbit, over to commercial interests.

We should enhance the systems we have today and derive from them all we can - a heavy lift launcher and a vehicle to go beyond low earth orbit based on ISS elements and systems.

We can develop great future systems for exploration using mostly the existing workforce, the existing knowledge base, and based on the existing systems.

Make slow evolutionary changes. If you throw it all away and try to start over, which was the Constellation plan, you likely will be left with nothing at all.

President Obama has one thing right: NASA needs to operate more efficiently. NASA cannot run like this is the space race (1960s). Thousands of government workers supported by thousands of contractors is ridiculous. I am sorry but NASA is not a jobs program like congress would like. People will be losing their jobs soon. 200 MILLION per month to run shuttle is simply unacceptable. This is government bureaucracy at its worst.

Extend the shuttle program over three years utilizing the built and partially built external tanks while transitioning to DIRECT and Jupiter 130 utilizing what Obama wanted to use to shut down CxP. Develop a LEO capsule (NOT ORION) that can be utilized should commercial not be able to deliver. Fund Jupiter 246 immediately to be ready to fly in six years.

Once somebody in power makes the decision to go to the moon or Mars we will have a Jupiter 246 ready to launch whatever hardware we decide we need. The DIRECT architecture gives us the vehicle(s) we need. We just need two things (and this is asking a lot from a source which cannot run cash for clunkers):

1) A vision

2) The cash to get there

This will allow us to keep the best of the best (people and hardware) while giving us the scalability and reliability of STS and the DIRECT architecture. Yes "BIG NASA", DIRECT is not a paper rocket that defies the laws of physics. This is the best path to save government funded HSF.

VR
RS327

If the public was better informed they'd know how stupid these Congressman and Senators are. If Posey wanted to “Ensure uninterrupted, independent U.S. human space flight access” he should have spoken up a long time ago. The gap is only acceptable if it keeps a ton of people employed in his district, even if they're not getting anywhere anytime soon. Bishop is no better and his calling Obama "naive" is truly the pot calling the kettle black. The rest is more of the same "leadership" and "the Chinese are going to beat us" garbage.

When we start seeing lots of these comments echoed from politicians that are not from NASA center and contractor states then I'll pay attention.