Plan B for Outer Space

[Swampcat]

<font color="#008800"><strong>Plan B for Outer Space</strong></font> <p>In 1992 as a student enthusiastically working on projects associated with the Shuttle, tethers in space, small satellites, and the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI), I, along with some fellow students wrote papers about technologies that could be used in the return to the Moon effort. One conference that we wrote a paper for was the American Society of Civil Engineers Space 1992 conference in Denver Colorado, which at that time was a wellspring of great academic and research interactions regarding practical approaches to building Lunar and Mars outposts.</p><p>During this time I kept a daily diary of my interactions as this was literally at the dawn of today's Internet and we still used paper for many things. At this conference were many NASA luminaries and at one panel discussion a startling, and in hindsight prophetic statement was made. The statement that is in my diary goes "SEI by 1994 or will not happen until after 2004". The person that made this statement was the head of NASA Code X (X for exploration), and his name was Dr. Mike Griffin. Dr. Griffin also stated that without the SEI the United States would begin to fall behind in aerospace technology. It seems that with 14 years of hindsight that Dr. Griffin was exactly right on both counts.</p><p>Those of us who were disappointed with the demise of SEI shared the frustrations that I am sure that Dr. Griffin shared and is trying to fix today with the ESAS architecture. NASA is furiously working to make the Ares 1 overcome its problems while also looking to the future in the development of the Ares 5 and the retirement of the Shuttle. However, there are many of us out here who were around then, I have written before, think the same forces that killed SEI are going to kill the ESAS architecture and Constellation systems. The chances of this are high enough that like a prudent military commander, we need a plan B for space. This is not going to come from NASA just as there was no plan B in 1993. Therefore as a service to the community that is desperate for a plan B, the following plan is offered for consideration.</p><p>---------------------------------------------------&nbsp;</p><font face="Arial" size="2"><p>The rest of the article outlines "Plan B."</p><p>It's an interesting read...somewhat a counterpoint to the Direct Plan. Check it out.</p></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[keermalec]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Plan B for Outer Space In 1992 as a student enthusiastically working on projects associated with the Shuttle, tethers in space, small satellites, and the Space Exploration Initiative (SEI), I, along with some fellow students wrote papers about technologies that could be used in the return to the Moon effort. One conference that we wrote a paper for was the American Society of Civil Engineers Space 1992 conference in Denver Colorado, which at that time was a wellspring of great academic and research interactions regarding practical approaches to building Lunar and Mars outposts.During this time I kept a daily diary of my interactions as this was literally at the dawn of today's Internet and we still used paper for many things. At this conference were many NASA luminaries and at one panel discussion a startling, and in hindsight prophetic statement was made. The statement that is in my diary goes "SEI by 1994 or will not happen until after 2004". The person that made this statement was the head of NASA Code X (X for exploration), and his name was Dr. Mike Griffin. Dr. Griffin also stated that without the SEI the United States would begin to fall behind in aerospace technology. It seems that with 14 years of hindsight that Dr. Griffin was exactly right on both counts.Those of us who were disappointed with the demise of SEI shared the frustrations that I am sure that Dr. Griffin shared and is trying to fix today with the ESAS architecture. NASA is furiously working to make the Ares 1 overcome its problems while also looking to the future in the development of the Ares 5 and the retirement of the Shuttle. However, there are many of us out here who were around then, I have written before, think the same forces that killed SEI are going to kill the ESAS architecture and Constellation systems. The chances of this are high enough that like a prudent military commander, we need a plan B for space. This is not going to come from NASA just as there was no plan B in 1993. Therefore as a service to the community that is desperate for a plan B, the following plan is offered for consideration.---------------------------------------------------&nbsp;The rest of the article outlines "Plan B."It's an interesting read...somewhat a counterpoint to the Direct Plan. Check it out. <br />Posted by Swampcat</DIV></p><p>This is a totally exciting concept! The Apollo CSM stack massed about 30 tons, therefore a 4-person lander, command module and service module stack should mass somewhere below 40 tons. propelling this to the Moon with <45-ton stages seems entirely possible, specifically if we consider refuelling or stage swapping at an intermediate elliptical orbit, as discussed in the Orbital Gas Stations thread.</p><p>Concerning the inadequacy of the ISS orbital inclination, surely we could change this if the need was sufficiently important. After all we boost the ISS to higher orbits every few weeks so why not make it undergo a plane change. The ISS is, after all, a big and very slow spaceship.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>

 

[Cygnus_2112]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Concerning the inadequacy of the ISS orbital inclination, surely we could change this if the need was sufficiently important. After all we boost the ISS to higher orbits every few weeks so why not make it undergo a plane change. The ISS is, after all, a big and very slow spaceship. <br /> Posted by keermalec</DIV></p><p>This is a fallacy.&nbsp; </p><p>1.&nbsp; How is crew going to get to the ISS once the inclination is out of <strong>Baikonur </strong>ranger?</p><p>2.&nbsp; It would take enormous amounts of propellants and too many flights.&nbsp; It would interrupt microrgravity research on ISS </p><p>3. &nbsp; And it is not needed</p><p>The ISS is not in a "bad" orbit.&nbsp; The higher inclination only reduces LV payload mass to orbit performance by 6%.&nbsp; The misconception is from the shuttle.&nbsp; It reduces the shuttle's capability because it is 6% of the mass of the orbiter and payload&nbsp; (6% of 250K lbs).&nbsp; This reduces the shuttle payload by approx 15K lb, which is substantial.&nbsp; Whereas an ELV mass to orbit 50klb and 6% is only 3klbs.&nbsp; </p>

 

[keermalec]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is a fallacy.&nbsp; 1.&nbsp; How is crew going to get to the ISS once the inclination is out of Baikonur ranger?2.&nbsp; It would take enormous amounts of propellants and too many flights.&nbsp; It would interrupt microrgravity research on ISS 3. &nbsp; And it is not neededThe ISS is not in a "bad" orbit.&nbsp; The higher inclination only reduces LV payload mass to orbit performance by 6%.&nbsp; The misconception is from the shuttle.&nbsp; It reduces the shuttle's capability because it is 6% of the mass of the orbiter and payload&nbsp; (6% of 250K lbs).&nbsp; This reduces the shuttle payload by approx 15K lb, which is substantial.&nbsp; Whereas an ELV mass to orbit 50klb and 6% is only 3klbs.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Cygnus_2112</DIV><br /><br />Good points, thanks for the input. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>“An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” John F. Kennedy</em></p> </div>