Major changes of NASA's exploration plans

[wvbraun]

Memo from the NASA administrator:<br /><br /><i>"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has embarked upon a rigorous review of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) architecture to determine opportunities to minimize the gap between an operational CEV and retirement of the Shuttle in 2010. This assessment is a part of the "Exploration Systems Architecture Study", which was chartered by the NASA Administrator on April 29, 2005. The product of this analysis is anticipated by mid-July 2005.<br /><br />The Exploration Systems Architecture Study will take place concurrent with the evaluation of offeror proposals received May 2, 2005 in response to NASA CEV Request for Proposal (RFP) issued March 1, 2005 by the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD). The RFP contemplated award of up to two competitive contracts with down-select to a single contractor in 2008, based on offerors' responses to a planned letter request for Phase 2 proposals to be issued by the ESMD CEV contracting officer.<br /><br />To facilitate minimizing the gap, up to two contracts are expected to be awarded prior to completion of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study. Following these awards a "Call for Improvements" (CFI) based on the results of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study will be issued to the selected contractor(s). CFI proposals will be evaluated for a final down-select decision to a single contractor expected in early 2006. </i>

 

[crix]

Okay, in plain english: NASA is going to select two contractors based on Phase 1 of CEV RFP response. Concurrently with the people that are reviewing these Phase 1 responses (SEB) is a new study (ESAS) that will consider ways to accelerate CEV schedule to minimize "the gap." I guess the SEV and ESAS people are to get together and issue a CFI possibly around mid-July that will bring about the last round of contractor responses before NASA selects the primary CEV contractor.<br /><br />Am I right? God, I had to read that article like 7 times and I'm still not sure I know what's going on. I wish Griffin could just choose the design he likes the best. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[grooble]

The shuttle ain't even gonna fly 10 flights!

 

[wvbraun]

Maybe he meant that Griffin will retire the Shuttle early. Griffin suggested just that in the Planetary Society report on the VSE...

 

[wvbraun]

What it says in plain english: There will be no fly-off in 2008, one contractor will be selected in early 2006 based on the CFI proposals. I think the reasoning behind this is that this way development of the fully operational vehicle will begin two years early; Griffin has repeatedly said he wants the CEV to be operational by 2010.<br /><br />The ESAS will probably define the big plan NASA will follow with regard to manned Moon and Mars missions: Griffin has indicated he wants to make sure that the Moon is not the final destination but only a stop-over on the way to Mars.

 

[wvbraun]

Why not? NASA has studied ways to cut the number of flights to maybe a dozen. It's possible (although not likely).

 

[elguapoguano]

I'd take that bet too. Shuttle IS going to fly another 28 missions. The Columbia accident was a fluke. However I would be willing to bet Shuttle will fly through 2010, and perhaps a year or two longers due to delays that always seem to pop up. The loss of two crews is very sad, but those are the risks we have to take. Even with losing two Shuttle's. the STS system still has a 98.2% success rate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Keep in mind what happened the last time we rushed a capsule program.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[R1]

so why retire the shuttle, <br />People, it is new and improved !<br /><br />we know how to build one, couldn't we build one to use after 2010?<br /><br />why couldn't we build a small powerless spacecraft (that fits in the shuttle bay) for use in space only, launch it and park it in orbit.<br />Then send a fuel/propulsion module and attach them up there. Maybe then a manned<br />lunar module and attach that, etc. ?<br />Basically the way the ISS was put together up there, but now instead of building a station<br />we build a spacecraft up there with optional maned lunar module?<br /><br />One of the ISS modules could have been a fuel module, another a navigation and command module, another a manned lunar module, the moon base would be there and fully<br />operational by now!<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

The Shuttle is way too expensive to operate ($4 billion per year) and it will never be safe, no matter how many improvements are made. <br /><br />Launching the moon ship (or its modules) inside the Shuttle's cargo bay doesn't make any sense. Such an approach would only add cost and complexity.

 

[wvbraun]

"Keep in mind what happened the last time we rushed a capsule program."<br /><br />What happened?

 

[wvbraun]

There is more:<br /><br /><br /><i>TO: Officials-in-charge of Headquarters Offices<br />Drectors, NASA Centers<br /><br />FROM: Administrator<br /><br />SUBJECT: Exploration Systems Architecture Study Support<br /><br />As a critical component of the Agency replanning effort, I have initiated an Exploration Systems Architecture Study. The study team will begin immediately and must complete its activities by mid-July to support a number of key Agency decisions. The study team will focus on four primary areas:<br /><br />1. Complete assessment of the top-level Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) requirements and plans to enable the CEV to provide crew transport to the ISS and to accelerate the development of the CEV and crew launch system to reduce the gap between Shuttle retirement and CEV IOC.<br /><br /><b>2. Definition of top-level requirements and configurations for crew and cargo launch systems to support the lunar and Mars exploration programs.<br /><br />3. Development of a reference lunar exploration architecture concept to support sustained human and robotic lunar exploraiton operations.</b><br /><br />4. Identification of key technologies required to enable and significantly enhance these reference exploration systems and reprioritization of near-term and far-term technology investments.<br /><br />This team will be led by Dr. Douglas Stanley and will operate fom NASA Headquarters. Dr. Stanley, or other members of my staff, will select and contact a small number of core team members to be co-located at Headquarters in the next few days. The team will need to draw on resources located at Headquarters and the Centers to efectively accomplish its mission. Please assist me by providing this team with the support required to accomplish these important tasks.<br /><br />Mr. Chris shank of my staff is the primary point of contact if you have any questions about this effort.<br /><br />[signed]<br /><br />Michael D. Griffin </i><br /><br /><br /><br />Looks like we will know fairly soon if NASA will

 

[wvbraun]

Yes, I know about the accident of course. However, I don't think that's an argument for drawing out the development schedule. Gemini and Mercury were developed in record time and there were no accidents.

 

[wvbraun]

"...we are running out of time."<br /><br />What do you mean?

 

[wvbraun]

You mean to be ready for a manned lunar landing in the 2015-2020 timeframe you have to start work now? I thought developing Shuttle C wouldn't take longer than five years...

 

[wvbraun]

"As for a Shuttle Derived vehicle, as time moves on vendor see the end of the Shuttle program and bail out. If we wait new vendors will have to be found and or developed. That is time and money."<br /><br />Good point.

 

[drwayne]

A couple of historical notes:<br /><br />The complexity of the Mercury capsule was much less than the Apollo capsule, which was actually being developed at the same time. Gemini development actually came later, and was, by a number of accounts, a better design, specifically because it got to learn from Mercury, while Apollo did not.<br /><br />Neither Gemini or Mercury had to deal with nearly the weight issues that Apollo did.<br /><br />By the accounts I have read and heard, the Apollo 1 capsule was rushed and quite buggy.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Something tells me that if the Shuttle has a few remaining assembly flights after 2010 then it will not be retired.</font>/i><br /><br />While I tend to agree with you, I did hear Griffin say on NPR about two weeks ago that because of the risks of not completing ISS by 2010 "we" may need to get creative in figuring out how to get the remaining pieces in orbit.<br /><br />That is why, in a previous post, I had wondered if some of the ISS components could be launched on a shuttle-derived HLV.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Shuttle IS going to fly another 28 missions. ... the STS system still has a 98.2% success rate.</font>/i><br /><br />Probability of loss of another shuttle before completing ISS: <b>40%</b><br /><br />1 - (.982)^28 = 0.399</i>

 

[wvbraun]

"Not to my knowledge. provide a link please."<br /><br />Here you go: NASA mulls early retirement for space shuttle<br /><br /><i>One option being studied would have the shuttles fly 20 missions, the current and former high-level NASA employees told MSNBC. This scenario would retain the Japanese and European science modules aboard shuttle flights, but just barely. In addition, serious studies might still be needed to discuss transferring the most important science consoles from both vehicles into a common, smaller module.<br /><br />Many officials within NASA believe that a slimmed-down station could still be a very useful place to conduct research. But according to the current NASA employee, "options that limit the shuttle to less that 20 flights make it impossible to live up to existing international agreements."<br /><br />Those agreements commit the United States to sending up modules built and paid for by Russia, Japan, the European Space Agency, and several individual European nations. Some of these are already years in development, with millions of dollars already spent.<br /><br />Still, the NASA employee added, "it's unclear that scientific gains are in step with the extra cost of completing the full-up station."<br /><br />An Apollo-era astronaut told MSNBC that current NASA officials had told him the agency was "studying an 18-flight [manifest] for the shuttle and even asking questions about 11 missions." Another former astronaut confirmed he had been told a similar account.</i>

 

[trailrider]

See my post on the Lockheed winged vehicle thread!<br /><br />NASA's going to be the prime contractor and integrator, and USAF is looking at a sort of shuttle-type fast reaction vehicle, without the necessity for a robust TPS. The payload section will NOT be recoverable, but that doesn't preclude a recoverable portion of the payload!<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Aries (or ARES...the USAF vehicle)! Ad Astra!

 

[summoner]

Yes, the 40% probability is faulty. If you have a 98% success rate, you have that each and every launch. The odds don't change after each flight. Just like flipping a coin, if you flip 10 heads in a row, the odds that you flip tails on the 11th remains 50-50. Law of Averages. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[drwayne]

"If you have a 98% success rate, you have that each and every launch. "<br /><br />On any given flight that is true. But I think the original supposition was that a failure would occur anywhere in the flight series before ISS completion/clsoing up shop.<br /><br />To carry on your analogy, the probability that a heads will turn up somewhere in the last 4 tosses is in fact higher that 50%. Much higher.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

I very much doubt Griffin will opt for anything like the Lockmart CEV anyway. A major redesign is comming, the concepts that have been submitted on Monday are already outdated.

 

[wvbraun]

So you're suggeting Oberg made this up? I find that hard to believe. And we *know* that Griffin co-authored the Planetary Society report that recommended shutting down the Shuttle program as early as possible.