ESAS release delayed till September

[wvbraun]

From nasawatch: <i>NASA doesn't quite have its act together and has decided to delay release of its new exploration architecture and plans for the space shuttle. As such, the earliest that Congress will be briefed will be the first week in September. In addition, details on what type of shuttle-derived heavy launch vehicle NASA wants (side mount vs in-line) are once again up in the air. Stay tuned.</i><br /><br />Link<br /><br />

 

[wvbraun]

From a report at Rocketforge on a presentation by NASA's Chris Shank at the RTTM conference: <i>He's showing a slide now that shows the first human lunar landing in 2018, CEV Development done in 2012, Lunar lander, lunar heavy lift, earth departure development all start in 2010.</i><br /><br />I think it's clear from this schedule that NASA is not counting on a budget increase. What has me really worried is that development of the HLV and everything associated with manned missions beyond LEO is planned to start after Bush (and presumably Griffin) leave office.

 

[john_316]

<br />I dont think 2008 is an appropriate time for lunar launches just yet,<br /><br />I would garner in the 2010+ range once the infostructure and HLV is ready for launch.<br /><br />I dont see the HLV launching until 2012-2014 time frame unless someone gets moving on the project.<br /><br />

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>He's showing a slide now that shows the first human lunar landing in 2018<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Depressing, isnt it ? We'll all be thirteen years older then. Think about it.<br />I sure hope that someone will beat them to it and i also hope that it wont be another government entity.

 

[crix]

That's true... 13 years is a long time.<br /><br />But think about where technology was 13 years ago and think about where we are today. 1992: "Hell yeah VGA VESA driver on my 13-inch,16bit color, 640x480 CRT! Hell yeah 4 megs of RAM!" I suppose that rocket efficiency won't increase at the rate that CPU clock speed has since 1992 but we could possibly successfully develop the technology to create the space elevator within 10 years. In fact, I'd be surprised if we didn't. Look at us now and what we take for granted: High speed global network, gigabyte storage dangling from our keychain, wireless everything, and miniturization of all things electronic. I'm a pretty big fan of Ray Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns as a fundamental force in the universe. There will be technology available over the next 13 years to accomplish our goals that is difficult to predict from the present.

 

[wvbraun]

And here is the explanation: <i>According to attendees at the Return to the Moon Conference in Las Vegas this weekend, Chris Shank said that he was specifically cleared by Mike Griffin to say that NASA does not have enough money to implement the exploration architecture it wants to put into place.</i>

 

[wvbraun]

Maybe that means that all the talk about the in-line SDHLV was more of a trial balloon and now that it has become clear that NASA won't get any additional funding they're going to settle on the side-mount LV. Sufficient for lunar missions but not for Mars Direct. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[wvbraun]

The House passed a NASA Authorization bill that adds money to NASA's overall budget to avoid cuts in science and aeronautics. The funding for exploration stays the same. The bill has to be reconciled with another NASA bill that's pending in the Senate.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Maybe that means that all the talk about the in-line SDHLV was more of a trial balloon and now that it has become clear that NASA won't get any additional funding they're going to settle on the side-mount LV. Sufficient for lunar missions but not for Mars Direct."<br /><br />The death of HLV could be a blessing for NASA. With limited resources it's better to plow money into nuclear rockets than HLV.<br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

" Chris Shank said that he was specifically cleared by Mike Griffin to say that NASA does not have enough money to implement the exploration architecture it wants to put into place. "<br /><br />I heard that the main consequence of inadequate funding is that NASA now plans on greater commercial support of the VSE. In my opinion getting the private sector more deeply involved in VSE is good for NASA (which saves money), the private sector (which gets into space) and for the VSE (vested interest spreads to more people).

 

[vt_hokie]

I sure hope they don't compromise on the HLLV, and accept a Shuttle-C type of configuration over the far superior inline configuration. Hopefully Congress can see that the incremental cost of going to the inline version will more than pay for itself down the road.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I'm not conversed into the US legislative procedure but it seems the House promised money</font>/i><br /><br />There are two primary classes of committees: <i>authorization</i> committees and <i>appropriations</i> committees.<br /><br />An <b>authorization</b> committe says you are allowed to spend the money, <i>if</i> you get it.<br /><br />An <b>appropriation</b> committee says how much money you will actually get.<br /><br />I was visiting a friend at NIST once who described himself as "authorization rich" but "appropriations poor". That is, Congress authorized him to spend lots of money, but then refused to give him the money to spend. While the <i>authorization</i> act by the House (the first to move to a full house vote in 5 years) is important and a welcome endorsement for many reasons, the big battle will be the appropriations process.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Chris Shank said that he was specifically cleared by Mike Griffin to say that NASA does not have enough money to implement the exploration architecture it wants to put into place.</font>/i><br /><br />I get the feeling there is a lot of misdirection going on here. Like a magician, "Ignore my left hand and focus on the pretty lady." A first moon landing (the primary reason of the SDHLV) in 2018 would mean 8 years of no shuttle related manufacturing and launching. I can't believe that would be acceptable.<br /><br />Radical (some might say, <i>radically stupid</i>) suggestion:<br /><br />(1) NASA scales back the remaining shuttle launches to 12 or so flights (a number frequently mentioned in rumors, including recent <i>Science</i> article).<br /><br />(2) NASA abandons LEO. No single stick SRB with a CEV on top to reach LEO and ISS. Sorry ATK.<br /><br />(3) NASA gives all supply support and manned access to ISS to commercial ventures (e.g., SpaceX, Kistler, t/Space). By promising to stay out of LEO (i.e., abandoning the SRB CEV), NASA allows private companies to attract investment dollars. If no one steps forward, NASA buys service from Russia.<br /><br />(4) The money saved from a drastically reduced flight schedule, limited use of the ISS, and no SRB CEV development is directed into the SDHLV and Lunar CEV.<br /><br />(5) First commercial supply mission to ISS (via SpaceX) in 2008. First manned access to ISS via t/Space in 2010. First SDHLV launch with dumby payload in 2011. First habitat (bought from Bigelow) delivered to the Moon in 2012. First long-term manned mission to Moon in 2013.</i>