Possible Solution for Constellation Program Budget Shortfall

[PJay_A]

I have (what I think could be) a possible solution to NASA's Constellation Program's $3 billion future budgetary shortfall. While looking at the program's planned launch manifest for the years ahead, I noticed that the first Ares I launches are planned as crew rotation missions to ISS. Years later, once the Ares V comes online, crew rotation missions to/from ISS do not cease, but are supplemented with the additional Ares I launches that dock with moon-bound Ares V/Altair complex in LEO which are to launch days earlier each time. When the Ares V begins its service, NASA would effectively triple in number the frequency of Constellation Program launches (a third of the launches for Ares I with Orion to ISS, another third for Ares V with Altair to LEO, and the third slice of the pie for Ares I missions with Orion for docking with the Ares V/Altair complex for a lift to the moon and back).

What I see with the current plan is a costly plan that will triple Ares launches years after the first Ares I/Orion ISS crew mission. The Augustine Committee - appointed by President Obama - has said it is nearly impossible to move forward with NASA's current plans, under President Obama's projected budgetary plan in the years ahead for NASA, without having a $3 billion shortfall it says it needs to move ahead with current plans for the program. An option under review would cancel NASA's participation in ISS in order to meet that shortfall.

After all the effort, all the hundreds of billions spent, and the incredible loyalty and dedication to the ISS project by all of the nations and participating space agencies, abandoning ISS would have profound repercussions with consequences compounding to outweigh all that we had gained in the first place. Abandoning ISS should never ever be put on the table as an option. In my opinion, abandoning ISS is not an option.

We must press forward with the Constellation Program, go to the moon, build Armstrong Base as planned, while never abandoning ISS! If the projected $3 billion shortfall is certain and Obama and/or Congress do not find ways to meet that shortfall, there is still a way to have our cake and eat it too! Here's my plan....

My plan only deviates from NASA's on the maiden service launch of the Ares V rocket. On its first certified mission, send the Ares V rocket to LEO WITHOUT the Altair moon lander. Its destination: ISS. Once this unmanned rocket docks, use the Lunar Transfer stage of the Ares V (originally designed to send Altair-Orion to lunar orbit) to MOVE the International Space Station to a higher orbit that is serviceable by not only Ares I, Soyuz, Progress, ATV, HTV, and SpaceX's Dragon, but also to Ares V/Altair in Lunar transit.

ISS then becomes a way-station to the moon. Crews could be sent to ISS and ISS crew members could be sent to the moon. This continues US ISS participation, while pursuing NASA's moon plan. Since Orion crews going to the moon would, under my plan, stop at the ISS in the improved orbit, there would be no need to also send Orion ISS crew rotation missions since the lunar mission could now double as crew rotation missions as well, effectively cutting a third of the missions of the Constellation Program launch manifest and saving billions in unnecessary cost! Billions more can be saved if they make the Lunar Transfer stage of the Ares V reusable, launching the Ares V only to provide fuel at ISS for the reusable vehicle. That would reduce the number of Ares V flights needed for Lunar flights, saving yet more billions of dollars! Additionally, my plan would also increase safety. Now, all lunar transit vehicles and returning Orion capsuls can be thoroughly inspected by ISS crews before returning to Earth or embarking to the moon.

 

[scottb50]

Maybe a bake sale would be a good idea! I would say if it won't fit on Falcon or Atlas or Delta it's a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.

 

[Zipi]

Somebody who better knows the orbital mechanics will hopefully give a better answer this one...

But I'm pretty sure that moving ISS to higher orbit would require much more than single (or more) Ares V lunar transfer stage can give. Probably its inclination has to be changed as well? Current ISS orbit is (if I remember correctly) the best compromize for American, Europe and Russian launchers. If the height and inclination are changed the ISS might become unavailable for certain launchers.

Hopefully some who knows these things better than I gives an answer. I found this kind of speculation interesting. :geek:

 

[samkent]

I’ll address this from the crew direction.

You would have to train 4 people to do their ISS mission as well as a lunar landing mission. After 3 or more months on the ISS they would lose their mental and physical edge.
Can you imagine Neal and Buzz taking 3 months off then hopping into the CM and zipping off to the Moon?

 

[PJay_A]

I’ll address this from the crew direction.

You would have to train 4 people to do their ISS mission as well as a lunar landing mission. After 3 or more months on the ISS they would lose their mental and physical edge.
Can you imagine Neal and Buzz taking 3 months off then hopping into the CM and zipping off to the Moon?

To meet the objectives of my plan, maybe we would have to wait until Orion is configured to its original six member crew capacity. If increased program cost becomes an issue in achieving this, then maybe NASA should seriously consider shifting Ares I/Orion program funds to contracting Falcon-Dragon manned flights as Dragon's planned crew capacity is greater than four and greater than Orion's originally planned six.

With the increased crew, some members can stay at ISS before the rest depart to the moon!

 

[samkent]

A stop over at the ISS would likely require Orion to travel through the stronger portions of the Van Allen belts.

As to NASA and Dragon keep this in mind. NASA was not set up to be a travel agency to book filghts with the cheapest carrier. They have been charged to fly missions on their own rockets no matter what the price difference is. It would be up to congress to change the ground rules. That would be about as likely as farming Medicare out to Aetna.

 

[MeteorWayne]

This is not a Mission or Launch subject, so will be moved to Space Business and Technology, the appropriate forum.

 

[doom_shepherd]

You need $3 billion a year?

Find a way to reduce Medicare fraud by 5%. (It's around $60 billion a year.) Apply the savings to the program.

 

[Bugs99]

Start a lottery for one or more of the seats to ISS or the moon. Have the drawing at the first operational fight which Im sure will be a big media event. Maybe even make it a world lottery not just US. $$$$$

 

[vulture4]

If NASA wants the taxpayer's money, it must produce new science and technology of practical value to America, not as an occasional accident, but as a primary objective. NASA is fully capable of doing this in areas from aeronautics to medicine. Unfortunately it's hard to see any practical benefits from the Constellation program. We are cancelling the Shuttle just when it has finally been flying reliably, when the Orbiters are capable of a hundred flights each, and the ISS could actually use them, so the money can be used to start a new program with old technology, that will fly twice a year with four people and almost no cargo, after a five year gap, while costing almost as much as Shuttle, simply makes no sense. We unfortunately cannot afford to go to the moon with this obsolete technology. Neither Bush nor Obama ever proposed it, nor did Congress appropriate it. If you can find enough space enthusiasts to chip in $3 billion a year, have at it. Otherwise, it's fantasy.

 

[Teru]

How about this one?

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Please give a little sum of money to save our eco-system first.

Virtually, the Earth has too much deserts.
Verbally, the Earth cannot substain for long.
Actually, the second largest lake in RUSSIA is drying.

I think a Nor-bel prize winner will help to save US from extinctions.
An old chinese proverb saying, "When teeth is dying, the day for the lips will not be long."
- Sorry for my poor translations -

Teru Wong

 

[Thaed]

Forgive my ignorance, but what scientific achievements can be attributed to the ISS?

For me, the real scientific gains seem to be happening in Earth-based laboratories and with space telescopes.

 

[rhowington]

Two points and a comment.

1. Boosting the ISS into a higher orbit is possible but, the orbit would expose the crew to greater doses of radation, both cosmic and solar. That would impact the length of stay for crew members and alter the parameters for biological experiments and increase the risk of health problems for astronauts as they age.

2. At conception the ISS was built to house 6 full time researchers and 7 or 8 occasional shuttle visitors. This is only now being accomplished. Adding, a Lunar expidition crew for any length of time would not be feasible.

The ISS was a grand idea when conceived and a perfect way to demonstrate the capabilities of the US Space Shuttle program. Which is why I think it is a failure. After spending $160 Billion dollars we have a 85% complete space station and a fleet of shuttles that are a danger to fly with little to show for the effort.

Now we complain of the 3 billion shortfall in funding for the Ares V. Personally, I never jumped in the NASA bandwagon for the Ares program. I always felt it was a step backwards. Capsules and solid rocket boosters? where is the forward thinking. How are we pushing technology. My solution for the Constellation Program budget crisis? Become, the NASA that launched Cassini, Spirit and Opportunity, and Messenger. Look to what we can do, not to what we did 40 years ago.

 

[nessia]

we spend billions on war planes the b120 bomber....that doesnt feed your face or better broadcast
a football team. Our national pride and purpose is on the line with Orion/Altair....its something to prove
we can do technology without KILLING people. Life is about growth and beauty,....not corporate bottom
lines or how fat we can make our waistlines. Life doesnt have a PURPOSE...it just IS.

 

[vulture4]

>>The ISS was a grand idea when conceived and a perfect way to demonstrate the capabilities of the US Space Shuttle program. Which is why I think it is a failure. After spending $160 Billion dollars we have a 85% complete space station and a fleet of shuttles that are a danger to fly with little to show for the effort.

That might be a little harsh. Are the Shuttles really too dangerous to fly? If so, we have to cancel the next flight; I don't see anyone who even suggests that. Does the LAS make the Soyuz safe? Two crews were lost and several more have been very close calls, and in one ground incident the LAS activated prematurely on the pad killed one worker and injured several more. The only factor consistently linked with safety is experience and Shuttle has more successful missions than any other manned launch vehicle. We do not, after all, have any means of escape when we board an airliner. And the ISS serves as a transportation hub for five vehicles already (Shuttle, Soyuz, Progress, HTV, and ATV) with SpaceX and Orbital soon to join them, and the Shenzou ready whenever we get over our Sinophobia. Most important, it can serve as a terminal for a new generation of fully reusable launch vehicles, which can finally make spaceflight not just possible, but practical.

Will ISS make a fortune through making miracle drugs? Probably not, but it could provide a convenient base for both earth and space observations and testing of satellite technologies. The South Pole station was in place half a century before the importance of the location for both neutrino and optical astronomy was appreciated. And if we cannot find something useful to do in LEO, there is no chance whatsoever that flying to the moon, where logistic costs are much higher, will serve any meaningful purpose.