Back to the drawing board ?

[radarredux]

Another thread on this board, and Jeffrey Bell's op-ed article suggest that the ESAS plan for returning humans to the Moon is in shambles. To meet budget requirements, technical objectives may need to be paired backed to Apollo objectives (two people, short duration, non-polar). In the end, 40 years after Apollo started it will take us more time to achieve similar results.<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">Question:</font>/b> Should NASA (and the government) basically chuck the current plans and time table and re-examine the entire goals and plans for achieving manned exploration of space?</b>

 

[radarredux]

Just to get the ball rolling, here is one possible suggestion (I am not advocating this, just suggesting this):<br /><br />(1) Kill ESAS and focus on retiring the Shuttle. This may occur in 2010 or earlier if ISS is completed earlier (2009 is the current date) or the Shuttle is declared unsafe to fly.<br /><br />(2a) Upon retiring the Shuttle, provide serious dollars to develop alternative access to space. There have been several efforts to develop alternative means to LEO, but they have largely been half hearted because with the Apollo in the 60s and the Shuttle in the 70s until now, there has not been any additional budget to seriously fund alternative strategies.<br /><br />(2b) By 2010 we may know whether the commercial sector will achieve an alternative to access to LEO, so instead of NASA investing in this area, NASA would focus on beyond LEO missions.<br /><br />The keys are <ol><li>Don't start another major program until you can retire the current one(s).<li>Don't underfund new development efforts - either fully fund a new program or don't start it (hence, waiting until Shuttle is retired).<li>Don't attach an artificial timeline that forces inappropriate desicions early on.<li>Invest in new technologies and test them in small demonstration pojects.<li>Don't insist on using the current technologies and companies which have repeatedly demonstrated their inability to budget or deliver.</li></li></li></li></li></ol>

 

[tomnackid]

"(2a) Upon retiring the Shuttle, provide serious dollars to develop alternative access to space. There have been several efforts to develop alternative means to LEO, but they have largely been half hearted because with the Apollo in the 60s and the Shuttle in the 70s until now, there has not been any additional budget to seriously fund alternative strategies."<br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Hmmmm, "provide serious dollars..." why didn't NASA think of that? When the Shuttle retires the money saved won't automatically go into NASA's coffers. It all goes back to the general fund and Congress decides how it is allocated. NASA just can't simply decide to "provide serious dollars" for something they have to beg the money from Congress.<br /><br />This sound like the old Steve Martin bit "How to become a Millionaire". Step One: Get a million dollars.<br /><br />As far as VSE being a shambles I wouldn't worry too much. At this point it is the engineers job to tear apart the proposed plans as thoroughly as possible. It still a study after all, this is what studies are for. Now if they had a booster half built and found out it was not powerful enough to do the job I would be more worried. Apollo was in a "shambles" up to a year or so before the moon landing.

 

[vt_hokie]

Time to bring Blackstar out of the black world! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Seriously, for many years, I have thought our next step should be a two stage to orbit space plane.

 

[elguapoguano]

Wings in Space are useless, worse than useless they reduce the payload as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

But a lifting body design offers many advantages as well. If I were in charge, we'd have a reusable lifting body space plane for crew transport and use something like the Delta IV for the heavy stuff!

 

[askold]

I think the key is:<br /><br />3. Don't attach an artificial timeline that forces inappropriate desicions early on.<br /><br />The rush to put people back on the moon (or Mars) is artificial. If we didn't go for 50 years - what would it matter?<br /><br />I thnik we should continue our space science program which generates positive tangible results. At the same time it moves our launch capabilities forward. At some point our reach will equal our grasp.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Hmmmm, "provide serious dollars..." why didn't NASA think of that?</font>/i><br /><br />NASA has a long history of wanting to "keep the team together".<br /><br />But let me rephrase the original question:<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">QUESTION:</font>/b> If implementing ESAS will take 12+ years and result in a similar capability to Apollo (2-man crew, few days, near the equator), would you still support the program?</b></i>

 

[BReif]

<font color="yellow">If implementing ESAS will take 12+ years and result in a similar capability to Apollo (2-man crew, few days, near the equator), would you still support the program?</font><br /><br />Its more capability than we have right now, or have had since 1972. We would be out of LEO. It would be a starting point that could be improved upon. In any event, I think that the engineers will figure this thing out, and the mission objectives will be met. It is going to take some time and design, and redesign, and crunching the numbers to get it there.<br /><br />However, if ESAS, or an alternative, doesn't get us out of LEO, then manned spaceflight is dead.<br />

 

[j05h]

Some reasonable solutions:<br /><br />1. Standing Prizes to match "VSE" capabilities. It'd take an act of Congress, but NASA should be allowed to post direct reward for milestones. The current prize system is an encouraging step toward innovation. I'd like to see a "low ball" $5 Billion Man-on-Mars prize.<br /><br />2. Set prices for current capabilities. The going rate for a 6 month stay with a tended Soyuz is $44 million per seat. That is the current market rate (within reason) and must be nearly matched for American efforts. This is why I think SpaceX is so important, their booster has the potential to exceed Soyuz in crewed functions. Soyuz is below the "break even" point now for a select group of billionaires. What brings that cost down a notch? A standing price gives a target for entrepreneurs to show investors, costs NASA nothing and benefits them greatly.<br /><br />3. Build infrastructure instead of throwaway upper stages. The EDS and LSAM should be recyclable into tankfarm components. Tankfarms in lunar orbit and LEO are essential to further exploration. It costs practically the same to design an upper stage for this kind of reuse as one for disposal, and greatly leverages future applications. Plug them together, fill them with residual fuels then mined volatiles. Use the engines on future landers. Every launch should place valuable infrastructure somewhere cislunar. Think ahead.<br /><br />4. Build what they are good at: the deep-spacecraft. Size to fly on existing boosters, per the SpaceHab and Draper trade studies, think recyclable. Use EELVs, Soyuz, Ariane, anything down-stream, but the rockets are already available to do this.<br /><br />5. Build more rovers. 8)<br /><br />We do need to travel beyond LEO. I want it done in a sustainable manner. <br /><br />Anyone else submitting suggestions for ESAS? <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

No. Lunar exploration must contain extensibility to a lunar base at a useful location and ISRU. Anything less is not worth the effort. <br /><br />However it'd be foolish to allow NASA to invest instead in some sort of re-useable launch scheme. Being a government program, they have no incentives to produce a cost effective launcher - we'd end up with something comparable to the shuttle in cost and remain stuck in the same paradigm we've been in for the last 25 years. A RLV is a monolithic megaproject, while the current lunar plan is modular and easilly adaptable and expandable. <br /><br />Rather, NASA should take it's time if need be to develop the technology to carry through a robust lunar program, while providing opportunity for non-government launchers so that they can count on the demand needed to develop more cost effective access to space. The EELVs launch cost went up by 80% because of low demand and poor economies of scale - they could double their launch rate for only 20% more money.<br /><br />For instance, an EELV rocket could launch the CEV TEI propulsion module, while an abridged man-rated CLV would launch the CEV with a much smaller service module. That reduces the cost of the CLV dramatically, and reduces the cost of EELVs as well since they're crying for more buisnes right now.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Anyone else submitting suggestions for ESAS?</font>/i><br /><br />There were a number of ideas developed earlier (NASA used to have slide presentations online). My favorite was t/Space's plan of using an inexpensive vehicle for travel to LEO and back, and a completely different (and reusable) vehicle for LEO to Lunar surface and back.<br /><br />However, in the end NASA formed a small in-house team to develop ESAS.<br /><br />I have to admit, I liked ESAS when it was first proposed. But if in the end NASA can only support an Apollo-class mission, I would lean towards having it cancelled. I might even lean towards putting the money into a more robust ISS program (sans Shuttle), because at least a vibrant ISS program could support private supply and support contracts.</i>

 

[mlorrey]

Note that the GTX could have been built and tested for about $750 million (in NASA dollars) or less.

 

[scottb50]

I think if Bigalow and others are serious they have to go back to the drawing board. Space X is doing something, but even their biggest proposed launcher is way too small, and more than enough complicated.<br />What is needed is a vehicle that can economically put 50,000-150,000 pounds of usable payload into LEO with minimal turn-around time combined with an upper stage that takes the payload to LEO and stays in orbit for other uses. <br /><br />If the Propellant tanks are the same Modules used for stations or vehicles they may be over built for some uses and more than adequate for other uses. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[space_dreamer]

I’m up to my eyeballs with the redesign of Bristol Space Planes Ascender cockpit at the moment but I‘ve just got to add to this thread! <br /><br />In my opinion The Apollo on steroids plan is already a budget plan (a Wal-Mart plan) because there is nothing new, just slight an improvement over Apollo. It’s a missed opportunity to lay down infrastructure. It builds on Apollo but it makes the same mistakes!<br /><br />This is what I would do- <br /><br />Develop the SDLV, we need a big heavy launch rocket what ever plan we go with! <br /><br />Develop the CEV, America needs a cheep safe way to get people to orbit ASAP (but keep it simple).<br /><br />Develop a reusable Space Tug instead of the EDS, (the Space Tug only partly fuelled is launched with the SDLV only).<br /><br />Fuel tanks can be launched into LEO with SDLV, EEVLs, Falcon9 or any other launch vehicle. The Fuel tanks are simple, passive. The Space Tug has all the guidance and docking equipment because it’s reusable. Once a fuel tank is launched the tug quickly collects it fuels up (to avoid too much boil off). <br /><br />Once fuelled up the tug can dock with payloads and take them to lunar orbit. It also can collect, dock and move in to position large Bigalow space station modules or anything else you what to be moved around!<br /><br />The Space tug creates a demand for fuel tanks in LEO! The Tug should be designed to dock with any size of tank whether 5 ton or 95 ton. This new market helps the new space companies as the fuel tanks are cheep to make because there not complicated space vehicles like Europe’s CTV!<br /><br />NASA can buy fuel from whoever can get it to LEO cheapest, this will drive down costs. <br /><br />Next use the SDLV to launch a single stage reusable moon Lander to LEO. <br /><br />The fuelled up Space Tug docks with it. The Astronauts fly to LEO in a CEV dock with the moon lander, the empty CEV stays in LEO, and the Space Tug propels the Astronauts to the moon. <br /><br />In the moon lander the Astronaut

 

[scottb50]

What do you guys think of my reusable Space Tug plan?<br /><br />I've been pushing it since before the great darkening. A Tug is an upper stage, refueled in orbit. Engines could be rotated for overhaul or repair as cargo. If needed Modules can be configured for various other uses by adding or removing special equipment.<br /><br />NASA can buy fuel from whoever can get it to LEO cheapest, this will drive down costs....<br /><br />I would hope business would buy it too. If the fuel is water it could be done safely and cheaply.<br /><br />The Space tug creates a demand for fuel tanks in LEO! The Tug should be designed to dock with any size of tank whether 5 ton or 95 ton....<br /><br />As long as all Modules are able to attach to any other Module in some way they can be different sizes of the same design. If you use the 15x60 foot, two Segment Module as a starting point you can add Segments as needed for bigger Modules or simply build a bigger size of the same Segment. If you need a 15X60 inch version it's identical.<br /><br />I think the best way to handle the moon and Mars is basing landers on the surface, the same basic design would work for both and gravity would be helpful in maintenance. Take a payload up for return and dock to a landing payload taking it down. Docking to a re-entry Module for return to the surface of Mars, or descending directly to Mars.<br /><br />The same thing works from LEO. A passenger Vehicle could be nothing more than a modified business jet. Launched into orbit using the standard Launcher and upper stage and a return stage to re-enter with.<br /><br />The return stage enters the atmosphere protecting the vehicle, releasing it below critical heating altitudes and using it's engines to return to LEO or LMO. Maybe not CEV, and I know you don't need wings in Space, but their much more practical coming back.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

I think you need S(N)EP tugs as well as chemical rocket tugs, then you can pre-position fuel at the moon much cheaper for the return trip than carrying it there and back chemically. The S(N)EP tugs would also be useful for unmanned satelites, such as the comsat the the breeze-M failed on recently.<br /><br />For re-useable space vehicles, it'd be neat if there was a docking ring around the top of the engine, then you could back the engine into an airlock, pressurize it and people could refurbish the propulsion system indoors. No need for a total drydock since most of the rocket is tankwall that doesn't need maintenence.

 

[scottb50]

Other than routine mantenence it would be much simpler to ship an engine down.<br /><br />I would think a Tug could put a satellite in a proper orbit and pick it up for refurbishing and redeployment when it completes it's mission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">What do you guys think of my reusable Space Tug plan?</font>/i><br /><br />One potential problem is that the current ESAS plans have no spare budget to develop the concept, test it out, build experience with it, and develop a solid concept of operations for such an effort.<br /><br />This might be an example of why ESAS should be cancelled or at least dramatically restructured -- to free up funding to develop and mature innovative approaches that would help in the long run.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><b>Question:</b></font>If Congress isn't going to pony up additional money for such an effort, what would you change in ESAS (or elsewhere) to free up money to develop the space tug to an operational level?</i>

 

[qso1]

Space tugs have been proposed over the years and of course none have been adapted. The first tug I recall was proposed in 1973 as part of the STS.<br /><br />By the 1980's studies were underway for manned tugs. By the mid 1980s the purpose of the tug was eroded by satellites that were built to such reliable standards that satellite repair in space never became a major market.<br /><br />The last study I can recall was a vehicle called OMV (Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle) which was a small unmanned tug proposed by Lockheed in the late 1980s for what was then SSF (Space Station Freedom). It was eventually cancelled.<br /><br />On your comments about fuel, there would be two basic types of propellant. Hypergolic or cryogenic. I'm not clear on why you mentioned water as fuel.<br /><br />As with any space project, particularly manned...the cost barrier must first be overcome. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[lampblack]

Two words: space elevators!<br /><br />Whether NASA moves forward with the CEV, etc. or not, it'll take something radically different -- something like space elevators -- to really open things up.<br /><br />Just one former English major's view. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[john_316]

I think the program at the start had good intentions since the loss of Columbia. But if we would have never lost Columbia there would never have been a VSE and ESAS! <br /><br />I think its all a marketing ploy and above all Politics!<br /><br /><br />Trust me its Business as Usual at NASA<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br /><br />(you didnt hear me say that!) <br />

 

[publiusr]

EELV also have unsurvivable abort modes.

 

[scottb50]

I'm not clear on why you mentioned water as fuel.<br /><br />I mention it because it is the safest and cheapest way to transport propellant into Space. There are also numerous uses for water in a manned presence in Space. Broken down into Hydrogen and Oxygen, using solar power, fuel cells would provide electrical power and Hydrogen/Oxygen powered engines would provide mobility.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[BReif]

Maybe I'm wrong, and hopefully I will be proved wrong (last gasp of a pro-spacer), but, I don't beleive that the United States, or anyone else for that matter will ever return to the Moon, go to Mars, or beyond. Even going to LEO is becoming too expensive, to complex, and too risky. It looks to me that human spaceflight is on its last leg, and dying. Perhaps its best if we give up the dream altogether and come to the realization that reality is we will never be a spacefaring multi-planet civilization, and its a waste to try.<br /><br />I used to be pro-space, and pro-manned space, but after 30+ years of lobbying congress, writing letters, and seeing time, money, and talent wasted, I'm fed up with it all. Perhaps a friend of mine who told me "It isn't ever going to happen" after Pres Bush (41) announced SEI on July 20, 1989 is actually reality. It isn't ever going to happen. There is no money, no politrical will, and nearly no public support. People in general don't care about space, or going to the Moon or Mars. They care about themselves and their families health and well-being and whether there will be money in their wallets to put food on the table in the next five years. <br /><br />I have turned a corner here, and I think that VSE, ESAS, STS, ISS, and even science missions (which won't be funded without the hope of humans getting there one day) are a waste of time, money, and resources. <br /><br />Why won't it happen and why is it a waste? Because the results driven work ethic and personal responsibility of the engineers of Apollo has been replaced with a "get my ego stroked" work ethic, and "blame someone else" scapegoating for mistakes that is rampant in our contemporary society. With this type of "culture of apathy" in our country, and among the young moving imto the workplace, I don't see one single ouce of harware being built much less lauch for the VSE. And I am not happy about that, but I am rapidly coming to the point of losing faith in a future