Plan B For Outer Space

hmmmmm

I think we've found the Marine in Bolden afterall.

I think the Hutchison-Bigham plan is pretty close to being the right one.

We have to assume that there is no new US crew launch capability for at least 7-9 years, based on Augustine.

(1) You have the right Shuttle infrastructure, personnel and experience in place today, so start planning for the development of an evolvable Shuttle based HLV. Evolvable so that even if the near term vehicle has a lesser payload capacity, a vehicle in the future could be upgraded for greater capacity
(2) see if maintaining the Shuttle assembly line permits a reasonably cost effective ability to keep Shuttles flying at a reasonable flight rate for several years
(3) commission a study to determine whether an evolvable and maintainable XM-like exploration module approach, with the XM modules based on ISS systems and architecture, makes more sense than the Constellation 'throw it all away each time' approach. This will determine the need for a high energy reentry capsule like the Orion.
(4) make a decision on whether a high energy ballistic capsule approach make sense vs a flyback reentry vehicle.

Personally, I believe that you still do not arrive back at Orion as the answer.
-Orion is competitive with the commercial options. -The government should not be competing with commercial industry.
-Orion is not going to be available any sooner than the commercial options and if Augustine is correct, its pretty likely that Orion will not be available until some time after the commercial options.
-Orion in its current form really is not acceptable for returning long duration crew
-Orion really is not acceptable as a deep space primary spacecraft.
-Orion in its current throwaway form is not acceptable for cost and operational reasons.

All of this means that, if the decision is to continue with the ballistic capsule approach, Orion will need a substantial redesign.

Orion is not an evolution from our existing Shuttle knowledge and does not even maintain the existing knowledgebase.

So given the current situation with how slow Orion has come along, its lack of cost effectiveness, and problems associated with its launcher, there is no reason to continue Orion in its current form.

I think you wind up with a smaller, more cost effective mini-Shuttle, perhaps based on a scaled up X-37. For deep space the XM approach makes much more sense as it maintains and further develops the knwoedgebase that ISS has been creating.

The emphasis on this plan requires the development of deep space power sources, and the continued ability to launch ISS-element sized components, whether by Shuttle or HLV.

Regardless of the outcome of the study, based on dollar availability, lunar landers like Altair are deferred for 10-15 years. So you wind up with vehicles that can travel around the moon, to the asteroids, to trajectories past the planets, but no lunar surface activities for the next generation.

This approach means that ISS can continue to be serviced and that ISS payloads/science capabilities can be assured.

Folks:

Sounds like Direct Launch to me.

It would seem a waste to use it for crew launch unless you could combine it with a Shuttles worth of payload. Then NASA wouldn't lose capability and the astronauts have a much better chance of surviving a mishap.

An in-line Shuttle Derived Vehicle could probably haul more mass then John Shannons Side Mount concept, but it would be further away in time.

Why not do both.

They built a whole new portable launch platform for the constellation program. The Vehicle Assembly Building has four bays. Maybe it's time to use it for a fleet of vehicles like they originally envisioned for the "Space Transportation System". Lots of studies were done on how to exploit the Shuttle technology. All cargo versions, in-line, side mount, Shuttle C and so on.

Use 'em all! Each type a craft has it's special portable launch platform. All vehicles use the basic STS launch concept (even a Stick (single solid launch vehicle) but for freight only). Let the STS evolve like it should have decades ago. Let multiple companies build multiple manned and unmanned spacecraft to integrate with the system.

Florida would be happy, lawmakers would be happy, the major contractors would be happy. I think it would be doable within budget if it were paced properly but sold as a progressive program that would add to their achievements.

The Space Transportation System was always underutilized. Solve the problem why and you'd have yourself a serious space program.

tinker

This is idiocy on the scale only achievable by a government. You want to prepare Plan B? How about outlining Plan A first. Outside of a vague promise to cancel Orion and switch to commercial access there has been no word of detail on how the US will maintain its proficiency and know how in space tech.

Where are we going? Why are we going there? What is the time line for getting there. What are we getting there in. What will power this space ship. What options are we considering for propulsion. What are we thinking about in terms of life support. Etc, Etc. This list of questions is very long and pretty much none of them are answered.

At this juncture in Mr. Obama's presidency it is already possible to say that this is a typical Obama admin maneuver. Make a bold pronouncement, watch the excrement get scattered by the fan and tiptoe around the room trying to avoid it, unsuccessfully. As opposed to exhibiting any sort of intestinal fortitude for a tough fight. As usual, political expediency and self-concern first, country second, if that.

I completely agree with BrianM about the Orion not having a place in a "Plan B".
Orion just doesn't represent progress. And why not make progress, while we still have the opportunity? After all, we're talking about our crew vehicle for the next 20-30 years. Imagine an Orion capsule making parachute landings in 2035.

Re: "According to Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee staffer Jeff Bingham, posting as "51D Mascot" at nasaspaceflight.com regarding Sen. Hutchison's recent proposal"

Ouch, Keith, so unlike you to out someone posting under a pseudonym!

Editor's note: it has been widely known for several years that Jeff posts under this pseudonym - known at NASA, in industry, on the Hill, etc. Indeed, others on that board regularly post things like "thanks Jeff". Bingham did not really use much imagination in contriving the nickname 51D Mascot either - he used to work for Jake Garn. Jake Garn flew on 51D. He outed himself a long time ago.

This looks like pretty good news. Obama and Bolden aren't good at being dictators anyway, and I don't think they want to be.

There is a big flaw in Hutchinson's bill as relates to continuing to fly shuttle. It is that NASA has reached a point in shutting down the program that they basically could not have the new hardware available for adding missions for probably at least two and a half years from the go ahead. That means that unless you extend the existing planned flights there is going to be a gap and flying as currently planned that gap is likely at best almost three years. So you won't have a shuttle flying probably until late 2013 at best with new tanks, SRBs, and all the other less noticeable parts required to fly. And the cost to bring back that capability is huge so you wonder if you spend it soon how long do you fly to make those restart costs worthwhile? Under the best current scenarios with the bill's stated intent to fly to 2015 it means you might get 2 years of flights in. Awfully costly since in those interim years bringing it back those manufacturing capabilities costs as much as actually flying. I don't think too many congressmen will be willing to spend the extra money needed tomorrow along with the long term costs associated with this bill. Just throwing some logic into this discussion. Pass the bill does not mean the shuttle just simply tacks on 2 flights a year starting immediately. It is hugely more complicated than that.

Bolden is a Marine
The activity has just started and you wish to still say the WhiteHouse is filled with lies?
Calling the plan with outrage wrong.
CxP is/was wrong and it is not working any longer Thanks to the President!

Making promises to seal the buy-in deal with political funding folks for a new giant rocket or a derivative of an existing giant rocket only works if these political funding folks are easily duped into believing that a promise to deliver an all-eggs-in-one basket product made is a promise kept.

The problem with selling rockets, especially big ones, has never gone away until now. In the past the big rocket procurement process has always repeated itself under slightly different guises. The Russians, Chinese, Indians, and US all use much smaller rockets, especially to just lift people into space. You do not need a heavy lift capability to safely lift people into space. You can only sell a heavy lift vehicle if a true need exists; otherwise, the buy-in never occurs.

What has changed the game from now on is the fact that the political buy-in folks no longer have to choose who to buy their rocket from, from those always standing outside their doors trying to sell them promises to deliver a huge overkill rocket for a certain cost and by a certain time. The political buy-in folks as well as non-political buy-in folks are buying rides to space from the Russians and SpaceX, both of which do not build giant new rockets or derivatives thereof.

Face it. The game has changed. Now get over it and start thinking about how to strategize and play this new game of getting into space that does not involve building a giant new or derived rocket with false promises unless you want to repeat what Constellation went through over and over.

The direction I see from actions being taken by political buy-in folks who control the funding to some extent is utilizing the concept of competitive launch contracts in which any launch service can haul fuel (i.e., the largest portion of weight of a rocket) to an onorbit fuel depot much like how gasoline trucks deliver fuel to remote gas stations. If a large fuel tank is maintained in a remote inhospitable area, then people knowing this are more likely to venture into these remote areas to explore because they can always decide to stay or leave based on their access to fuel in remote areas.

Through competition with anyone capable of achieving low earth orbit, the size of the rocket comes down and the cost per pound delivered comes down compared to doing it in the other direction, i.e., larger rockets and fewer launches. The idea is to have as many launches as possible for a fixed funding pie to consume. In this way, costs and schedules are better managed like cogs in a machine. If one goes bad, the cog is easily replaced without much impact to cost and schedule.

If, however, the launches are instead reduced because the rocket is big for the same funding pie to consume, then the big rocket takes on the appearance of a linchpin instead of a cog. Linchpins are not easily replaced and can either work their miracles or get exposed as cogs that don’t really know what they are doing, i.e., it turns out they are not a linchpin after all.

They are also considering using kerosene fuel for kerosene engines like the Russians used for more than 40 years to store onorbit. This fuel is much easier to produce, handle, and store than liquid hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen used as rocket fuel represents the Cadillac of rocket fuels and is simply a luxury to use, especially if your vehicle is starting from the ground. But if you lift an empty vehicle to the onorbit fuel depot, you can substantially increase the size of the empty vehicle compared to lifting a fully fueled vehicle into low earth orbit.

Remember, fuel in space doesn’t “weigh” anything. There are no gravity loses in the rocket equation that is a simple logarithmic equation of the desired change in velocity based on the initial and final vehicle mass, i.e., fuel usage. Let’s say you have an infinite amount of fuel waiting for you when you get into space orbiting the earth. What you are lifting into space is mostly the fuel you need to get there.

There simply is no need to take fuel you will need when you get there until you get there. Sure, it is going to cost more to get fuel once you get there, but you can only take so much weight to these remote areas. How you divvy up the weight adds to the long list of things you want to do on your trip to a remote area. Each pound of fuel you don’t take with you when leaving from the ground, is a pound more of equipment, supplies, or people to do things you want to do on your trip.

The political buy-in folks have grown tired of accepting false promises of big rocket contracts in favor of widening the competition to anyone capable of lifting any amount of weight into low earth orbit. For those ignoring the new direction in access to space, I wish you luck as the forward thinkers and I leave you behind.

"The Space Transportation System was always underutilized. Solve the problem why and you'd have yourself a serious space program."

Why should the government be in the business of creating more government demand for its own government-run space transportation system? To maximize employment? To compete with existing and emerging private sector alternatives?

Really, after NASA's hundreds of billions are spent, decade after decade, what sustainable space enterprise is America left with?

Since we're in the midst of the Great Recession, let's be clear with Congressional objectives and rename NASA as one of the following:

- National Aerospace Works Association
- Aerospace Public Works Administration
- Aerospace Works Progress Administration
- TX/AL/FL Aerospace Authority

Of course, the aforementioned may still be best:

- North Alabama Space Administration

I always thought Constellation a rather elegant name. And its parts, Orion, Altair, Ares...

Plan A could be called Nebula.

Plan B? center of gravity sounds boring but that's what it is.

Well
thank goodness there IS an Administrator with gumption. Just took a while showing it. Nevertheless, one cannot imagine that Obama didn't consult with Bolden before announcing the "Plan A". Plus the way Bolden spoke, whilst it was clear PoR as already mapped out was now cancelled, that an alternative - and particularly affordable - plan could be fitted in an meet criteria. I've a feeling that what we're seeing here is saving face with the 'D' word being replaced by the 'E'("Evolved") word, but in fact being simply 'D' in place while not admitting to making any errors of judgement to begin with. As long as they now stop piddling about and Get On With It, that suits me. Looks like
Ross Teirney had the right of it!

Politics is surely the art of compromise. Unfortunately, what bothers me most about the process is the hit it must be taking on workers in the trenches. The people who are actually bending metal must be feeling whipsawed. It's easy for people to come up with a paper plan B, or plan A for that matter. It's just a thought exercise. But for people in the field it has to be disheartening to be getting mixed messages. If anyone down in the trenches is reading this, care to comment?

This is way off topic but...

If the plan is called "Constellation", naming the launch system after the Hellenic god of war was always a bit mysterious to me. I didn't understand it until I read "The Case For Mars" by Robert Zubrin and realised that:

a) The Mars launcher in the Zubrin plan was called 'Ares';
b) Mike Griffin was a fan of Zubrin's idea.

Then everything sort of fell into place.

Purely for my own amusement, my names for the hardware would be:

Launch Vehicle - Hercules - Strong guy trying to reach the gods in the heavens;
CEV - Pegasus - The mount of a classical hero;
LSAM - Aquilla - The eagle;
MTV - Argo - The ship of the Argonauts; Carried heroes on a quest.

And, of course, they are all constellations. ;-)

Editor's note: Former NASA Administrator (and former Navy Secretary) Sean O'Keefe named it after the ship depicted in a painting in his office i.e. the USS Constellation. Indeed he showed me that painting in his office while he was still Administrator.

Dragon and Dream Chaser can get people to and from LEO spacestations. A means of getting from LEO to low lunar orbit and spacestations at the Lagrange points is needed.

Next a means of getting back to LEO is needed. Going via the Earth's surface is very inefficient. So the transfer vehicle will either have to refuel before returning or use a metallic thermal protection system to perform about 3.2 km/s of areobraking.

The transfer vehicle can easily spend 10 years in orbit without returning to the Earth's surface.

Lordy!
With all the higgly-piggly stuff posted here this is starting to sound like Plan 9!

It is sad. NASA does all the work to see where the space program is, and where it should go.

And then Congress starts back at square one.

Projects always overrun, whoever controls them, but that's not the point.

If a government project overruns it can always continue. The government has deep pockets and there is always a good argument against giving up on the investment.

Musk and Bigelow on the other hand, only have their own money and whatever they can raise from investors. Rich as they are, this is peanuts compared with NASA's CxP budget. And even if the government has put in some investment, it's much less than a standard contract and they can easily walk away.

So, even with a government customer, private industry has far more chance of failing, and at the same time, far more reason to be focused, pragmatic and cost effective. That's why it's a risk and that's why it's worth backing.

rkoen is right. The contracts for STS were canceled long ago. Restarting them will not be easy nor cheap nor fast. And STS ties up an inordinate amount of NASA funds, funds needed for CxP since the Presidents (GWB & BHO) & the Congress basically said build CxP by cannibalizing other programs and projects. Part of the CxP funding plan was to ramp up after Shuttle is retired, using the funds formerly consumed on Shuttle. No turning back to Shuttle, regardless of whether we build a gov't or commercial next gen vehicle.

Augustine Option 5C. SDLV. It will kill NASA if it remains a jobs program. Ares I needs to die. EELV needs to live. That's the only way NASA as a space agency can go beyond LEO with the budget it has.

Then wouldn't the logical course of action be to have a plan that used both methods?
This is more or less what COTS was attempting, even though the politics would ruin it eventually.

Regardless of how that would have turned out, the change how we acquisition spaceflight time should not have come hand in hand with the sacrifice of our exploration goals.

This is news? All of the other Centers have had working tiger teams since the budget was announced (I'm pretty sure none of them asked the Administrator's permission). It is pretty sad when a grown man has to ask mom if he can play ball. Anyone remember when JSC was the lead Center?

One thing I can assure you all out there "is" that the people who work at those centers around the nation that are supporting man space flight are the most dynamic, dedicated and skilled work force you will ever encounter. From the people who pick up the office trash, those in the cafeteria and all the way to the Doctoral Degree scientist. They will never bow down their heads to ill fated policies or politics.

Dedication in the light of uncertainty is exactly what these people are about and beyond anything this nation will ever have or witness. Those men and women keep on testing and processing the Space Shuttle with the up most care, concentration no matter how financially troubling the future holds. They are one team united in the spirit of mankind’s ambition for discovery and maintaining hope for our nation children’s future to be the leading nation in science and technology.

Many people come here with their simplistic views and at times Poke fun, riddle, and belittle those that work with the upmost dedication. It is my humble opinion that the facts are clear, at the end of the day and if man space flight does end as we know it today, this nation will never assemble anything like what you have today and no one will ever trust any Governmental agency ever again to join for anything remotely like what this nation has today known as NASA. Many people come here and poke fun on suggesting the renaming NASA to match some kind of Jobs Program and that’s okay as those can express their ignorance and short minded views on this subject. I am not talking about jobs but, the constant "mission" policy shift changes. It has placed a huge pressure to the people that work in man space, rumors after rumors have made it just an nightmare as even Civil Servants are even questioning their future or lack of. It has become a living nightmare for middle and upper management to settle the nerves of Civil Servants and keep them focused and making sure we do not lose sight of safety and mission success. It is perhaps the saddest time for this Agency that I can recall! A slow death description could not provide justice. I just learned at least two highly educated Civil Service Engineers left the agency today for private employment, a combined 40+ years of experience lost!

Can I say anymore?

It happens every two to four years. It si why smart researchers now work with a one-year-and-out mentality. Any funding for something beyond the endo of the year is too tenuous to rely upon it.

But using your argument, if we get three years into the program and Elon says "No mas!" because it costs him too much we are left with billions spent and years lost. A government program like CxP would at least be likely to be able to overcome funding problems. And given the failure of VentureStar to raise capital, i think how private industry is going to finance this work is a very real concern that receives far too little attention.

So how much risk do we assume as a country when we put all of our effort into small, unproven companies? Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, ATK, etc., at least have track records of producing and launching vehicles of suitable size and capabilities for ISS missions. People seem to be extremely enamored with SpaceX in particular and private start-up companies in general, and I think that they fail to see the problems of relying upon them so heavily. A repeat of the current CxP problem is at least a 50% and likely a 90% probability given the history of start-up companies in America.

So let's factor in and discuss that risk before we throw out CxP and the Government option. Let's also consider the probbility that they can make schedule and budget when large, experienced companies have problems doing so.

I hope that all of these companies make it one day. I think turning over ISS supply to them is a reasonable first step that will allow them to prove if they are worthy of consideration for greater things or not. Just let's stop sanctifying them and their abilites when they are still quite suspect. SpaceX, for example, has a substandard success rate with Falcon 1. The legitimate question is, should we expect better from the larger, more complex Falcon 9?

I would welcome a rational discussion of the promise, the reality and the dangers of commercial spaceflight reliance by NASA. So far I have not seen one.

@Maxwell and David44149

Agreed. Backing both horses is the logical course and this is what Griffin was doing. The problem is cost but Griffin had no choice. He had to embark on building a rocket (leaving aside how he went about it) because the commercial route was too much of a long shot.

5 years down the line and the commercial route is looking a much safer bet than before (that is safer not safe) hence the new plan backs just one option.

And I totally agree, the risks should be explicitly stated and rationally addressed.

> So let's factor in and discuss that risk before we throw out CxP and the Government option.

Join the rest of us in 2010. This has all been considered and Constellation was still thrown out. I know the HSF review report is a lot to read, so maybe you just want to watch the 10 hours of sessions on vimeo instead.

"if we get three years into the program and Elon says "No mas!" because it costs him too much we are left with billions spent and years lost."

Exactly. It's bit like taking the rent money and putting it down on black. Hey, it might work - and it also might blow up in your face (to use an apropos simile).

"given the failure of VentureStar to raise capital ... Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, ATK, etc., at least have track records of producing and launching vehicles of suitable size and capabilities ... A repeat of the current CxP problem is at least a 50% and likely a 90% probability given the history of start-up companies in America. ... Let's also consider the probbility that they can make schedule and budget when large, experienced companies have problems doing so."

Excellent points.

E.g. on your last, SpaceX is already considerably behind schedule on their COTS Falcon 9 launches. (Not that that means they are bad engineers, far from it - it's just that, as you point out, that's the nature of the business.)

"I hope that all of these companies make it one day. I think turning over ISS supply to them is a reasonable first step that will allow them to prove if they are worthy of consideration for greater things or not. Just let's stop sanctifying them and their abilites ... I would welcome a rational discussion of the promise, the reality and the dangers of commercial spaceflight reliance by NASA. So far I have not seen one."

Exactly. Best wishes to them, and I hope they succeed, but... right now they are (quite literally) a gamble.