New ESAS warns VSE is becoming 2-man, 7-day Lunar missions

[jamie_young]

Major weight problems.<br /><br />Only one that works is a two-man LSAM, called the "Walmart" lander.<br /><br />"Once characterized as "Apollo on steroids" by NASA administrator Mike Griffin, the architecture surrounding the ESAS (Exploration Systems Architecture Study) has grown too heavy for its launch vehicles.<br /><br />According to NASA internal review documents obtained by NASASpaceFlight.com, the architecture may be sheared of much of its "steroid" capability, or be replaced by a radically different kind of lunar exploration technique - based around rendezvous thousands of kilometers above the farside of the Moon."<br /><br />Story and the new ESAS study document scans showing all the data...<br />http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4430

 

[baktothemoon]

Not good news. Hopefully they don't have to make the hull really thin like they did on the LEM. I wouldn't feel safe in that thing. I wonder if NASA will just have to make a strictly cargo lander so that they can cut all the payload weight they want on the LSAM to carry more people. I don't know.<br /><br />Hey, this is a little off topic,but what are the projected cabin dimensions of the CEV/LSAM? I was hoping that NASA wouldn't have to look for short astronauts like in the previous capsules we have made.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[j05h]

The trade studies for ESAS carried the solution: break the components into common pieces that can be launched on existing vehicles. The SpaceHab study was very illustrative.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jamie_young]

Such as Delta and Atlas? I thought they need more power, not less?

 

[edkyle98]

The ESAS report discussed an even better, lower-cost <br />solution: "Two-Launch EOR-LOR". Two identical launch <br />vehicles, both smaller and less expensive than the <br />currently planned (and possibly unworkable) 125 tonne <br />(LEO) heavy lifter. One orbits CEV and LSAM. The other <br />orbits EDS. One docking in LEO just like the current plan, <br />except NASA doesn't have to develop a completely <br />unique and separate crew launch vehicle. <br /><br />The Two-Launch EOR-LOR plan can be performed by <br />RS-68 powered launchers. I think it might also be <br />possible to use 4-segment SRBs, but the ESAS report <br />didn't say that. The ESAS version used 5-segment <br />SRBs and four SSMEs, but the lunar mission performed <br />this way was still only 87% of the cost of the planned <br />"1.5 EOR-LOR" mission that uses the 25 tonne Stick <br />and the 125 tonne CaLV - each separately developed <br />at a cost of more than $10 billion.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[vt_hokie]

Why am I not surprised?!

 

[qso1]

vt_hokie:<br />Why am I not surprised?<br /><br />Me:<br />Ditto. <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>

 

[mattblack]

I've said on this and other forums that losing the LOX/Methane technology would bite them in the ass one day: big time. I have to say that while the L2 concept opens up some interesting operational possibilities and truly takes the crews into "deep space", the "Walmart" lander concept gives me the creeps, as landing only 2 crew to make marginal improvements over Apollo opens this whole venture to vicious attacks by anti-VSE and especially anti-manned space critics. Nasa may be offering it's own head on a platter to the Nemesis of credibility. <br /><br />I can understand, even begrudgingly condone the ditching of the RS-25(SSME) for the RS-68, the sacrifice of the CEV's cryo propellants for hypergolics, the use of PBAN for the 5-segment SRBs. BUT -- The lifting capability of the CaLV and ESPECIALLY the LSAM features MUST be maintained, otherwise the critics assertions that this is all just "flags & footprints" again will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. <br /><br />On the face of it, this is all a potentially BIG dissapointment, akin to the conception of the Space Shuttle 34 years ago: Followed then by the slow but sure gutting of the Shuttle concept until we ended up with what we got: To coin a phrase from Mike Grifin, a very aggressive and just barely possible design, nowhere close to what it was supposed to be. Could the "Walmart Lander" place 21 tons of payload ANYWHERE on the Lunar surface in cargo mode? I doubt it. <br /><br />**The capability to land and return 4x crew ANYWHERE on the Moon after a week long mission MUST be preserved. And I also think it's be a mistake to leave off an airlock on the Ascent Stage. And if that means putting 4 or 5x *UPGRADED* RS-68s on a new corestage based, or not, on E.T. tooling with some sort of L-2 etc. compromises thrown into the mix.... So be it. It's the mission that has to be preserved. Either way, an HLV with 120+tons to LEO capability needs to be kept. <br /><br />But still; I'm preaching to the choir here. And I'm a positi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[steampower]

it`s what you get when you have a program run by accountants and politics, nothing much for too much money, when I was a kid my ambition was to be an astronaut flying on a Mars spaceliner, seems I was born 1500 years too soon.<br /><br />steampower.

 

[crix]

What the heck numbers were they using when they wrote the ESAS "Final" Report?? How can there be a new ESAS? I don't understand what this apparent body is... who is it composed of, the ESAS research members I mean. Is ESAS a report, or a reporting body?<br /><br />2 men, 7days, equatorial, no airlock, no thanks.

 

[edkyle98]

"What the heck numbers were they using when they <br />wrote the ESAS "Final" Report?? How can there be a new <br />ESAS? I don't understand what this apparent body is... <br />who is it composed of, the ESAS research members I <br />mean. Is ESASa report, or a reporting body?"<br /><br />Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) was a <br />study performed by an assigned group - assigned by <br />Griffin. I think of it as a committee after the fashion of <br />the famous Silverstein Committee that defined the Saturn <br />launcher plan. Note that the Silverstein Commitee plan <br />laid the foundation, but that subsequent events rendered <br />much of it moot so that Apollo missions were performed by<br /> a single Saturn V instead of by a series of Saturn C-3 <br />launchers . <br /><br />The ESAS report assumed that the shuttle-derived launch <br />vehicles would be powered by space shuttle main engines. <br />Now it seems that cost issues have driven NASA toward <br />less efficient RS-68 engines instead. ESAS also assumed <br />methane propulsion for CEV and/or LSAM. Costs have <br />also stopped that idea, which has added mass. Etc.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle<br /><br /><br />

 

[mikejz]

Between this and the ATK bait-and-switch with the single stick, maybe we should just order a few more orbiters and reside ourselves to LEO and the ISS.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Major weight problems.</font>/i><br /><br />Sigh...<br /><br />Well, I guess the good news is that they are doing all this analysis now before they start bending metal.</i>

 

[skyone]

Its, unfortunately, Gaeto's field day.

 

[mogster]

I was right behind VSE, it sounded sensible with a good chance of success. Its getting harder not to be negative though, more cash is needed fast. A stripped down to the bare bones VSE is going to get canned, with limited capability the public/congress will look at it and say why bother.

 

[josh_simonson]

I wouldn't worry too much, this is just part of the design cycle where managers give engineers instructions, and a few weeks later the engineers give a detailed report showing how those instructions will affect the program. In this case management decided to drop the methane engine as being too expensive and it's taken this long to produce detailed reports on the rammifications of that. Now NASA management and congress have to digest that and provide further instruction - the main question is how they'll respond. Revisit methane? Orbital refueling? Beefier Aries V?<br /><br />By giving the 'walmart' lander a demeaning name, that indicates they don't really consider it a serious option.

 

[mogster]

Hmmm, OK. <br /><br />Hopefully this is a case of 'look this is what we'll end up with if we don't have more money exercise' rather than reality then.

 

[nacnud]

I don't think that it's current a money problem, after all nothing beyond studies has yet been done. I more that the current lifter is too small or the LSAM is too big.

 

[mikejz]

I wonder if this puts Methane back on the table....or possibly the return to a non-apollo style capsule.

 

[nacnud]

The source of this isn't a press release but actual journalism. This study isn't ready for the press yet, that’s why it is so interesting.

 

[bwhite]

Can't an RL-10 be modified to run on methane?

 

[josh_simonson]

The different temperature, pressure, density and cavitation behavior of CH4 would require major rework of the RL-10 turbopumps - the most risky, complex and expensive part of the engine. Also, to get a good ISP a lot of research would have to go into optimizing the engine to run at peak performance.

 

[crix]

I just thought they had done their final report... I didn't realize there was going to be another one.<br /><br />Apparently now there is going to be another report stating that this info is out of date and all these problems were solved with the .5m diameter reduction. I'm so confused.

 

[starfhury]

The whole ESAS/VSE starting to fall apart is exactly what happens when people try to get too greedy. I was never in favor of VSE and now I'm even less in favor of it. We've been to the moon. We don't need to rush back there immediately, not until we can build sustainable orbital platforms. Mars is out of the question if we have to do an all up launch from Earth with present and near future technology. We can't put the roof on the house before building the foundations first. This is why I'm still in favor of a shuttle/LEO space station outward build out. We need independent expert designed systems attacking different regiments of the problem. A shuttle for ground to LEO. A station at LEO as an assembly, rally point. An Earth/Moon shuttle and a lunar shuttle in whatever form they might take. <br /><br />The idea is simple. Use the shuttles to build the station. Use the shuttles to ferry men and material to the LEO space station. Assemble Earth/Moon shuttle on orbit at LEO stations. Use that to ferry a lunar station to Lunar orbit and lunar landers to Lunar station. Build moon base. Explore Moon and turn eyes to Mars or NEOs. This process will create an interdependent system capable of sustaining and creating demand for itself. The most critical part is building the first leg and creating those shuttles that can reduce the cost to orbit and increase flight rates. As long as ESAS/VSE does not address those issues, I'll be opposed to it and we are going to squander time and billions of dollars for nothing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Thats what NASA planned for the 70s, unfortunatly they only got 1/3 the buget they needed.