VSE outline slides

[radarredux]

More leaks from the NASA Exploration Systems Architecture Study Overview Charts.<br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18001<br /><br />Six slides:<ul type="square"><li>Study Groundrules and Assumptions<li>Technical Groundrules and Assumptions<li>ESAS Initial Reference Architecture<li>ESAS Initial Reference Architecture<li>Approach<li>ISS Requirements - Preliminary<br /></li></li></li></li></li></li></ul>

 

[askold]

This reads like a FEMA hurricane disaster response plan - heavy on generalities and light on specifics.

 

[gofer]

Looks like another part of that presentation: http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/06.04.05.esas.budget.lrg.jpg fell out of the folder. <br /><br />The dotted line is the actual projected budget. What a plan. The CLV based on the SRB (remember Safe, Simple, Soon) costs more than the CEV which is a brand new reusable spacecraft and is supposed to go to ISS, the Moon and Mars, and beyond, and the SDHLV consumes most of the remaining budget after 2018 (assuming no budget projections increase) even prior to the inevitable overruns, and 'surface systems', i.e. the actual reason these rockets are being built (I hope they aren’t just launching 15Mt of air*) is funded at laughable levels. <br /><br />Brilliant... I don't know who they let use their PowerPoint back then, but I think that's when they realized they had to go back to the drawing board and delay the release. Good for NASA. Releasing it like that would have been an embarrassment. <br /><br />p.s. I thought they'd banned this kindergarten style PowerPoint bulleted outline crp for engineering studies after Columbia<br /> <br />*[edit] If I'm not mistaken that's the cargo payload to the moon they mention in the slides

 

[askold]

It's hard to take this stuff seriously.<br /><br />The first hard target is an actual flight to the ISS in 2011. That's in 6 years! Using a vehicle that is currently a glint in somebody's eye.<br /><br />How does NASA expect to be taken seriously putting out nonsense like this? I'd be surprised of there's another shuttle flight by 2011.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">How does NASA expect to be taken seriously putting out nonsense like this?</font>/i><br /><br />Well, to be fair, NASA did not put these out. These (and so much more) are For Official Use Only (FOUO -- or whatever the acronym is).<br /><br />NASA seems to be an incredibly <i>leaky</i> organization.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">p.s. I thought they'd banned this kindergarten style PowerPoint bulleted outline crp for engineering studies after Columbia</font>/i><br /><br />I think the problem may have been that there were <i>only</i> the powerpoint slides before. If you circulate a detailed document describing the analysis that led the the summaries presented in the slides, I don't see a problem with the slides.</i>

 

[askold]

Any big organization is going to be leaky - especially with the Internet and email.<br /><br />But, I'm not refering to just these memos - hasn't Griffin quoted 2011 as a fly date for the new manned vehicle. That seems unlikely, to put it mildly.

 

[chriscdc]

The problem with trying to get the shuttle going is that they can not change the shuttle. It was a design that was just asking to be hit by foam. <br /><br />A whole new ship however could be completed within the next 6 years. The US developed three different capsules within a decade and then they didn't know what they were really doing. Now every nasa engineer has a little doodle somewhere of how they would build a space craft. <br />Russsia has been flying practically the same design for decades.<br /><br />I think the engineers know how to build a capsule. <br /><br />I wish they wouldn't fly the shuttle again ever. Then we would have 5 billion dollars to spend on the Vision, every year. They could even cut the Nasa budget by a couple of billion and they could still get the CEV working.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">hasn't Griffin quoted 2011 as a fly date for the new manned vehicle. That seems unlikely, to put it mildly.</font>/i><br /><br />I've seen the date 2012 mentioned a few times now. But the primary point is that there is nothing really new to develop to get humans to LEO; all the technologies and systems already exist. The CLV+CEV is an integration effort, not a research or development effort.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">A whole new ship however could be completed within the next 6 years.</font>/i><br /><br />A quote by Michael Griffin in the latest issues of Aviation Week (5 Sep 05): "<i>We really only think it's about a <font color="yellow">six-year job to get back to the Moon</font> but it is a question of when you start. ... Okay, we can't start until the existing obligations have been worked off... so the budget money that we can forsee allows us to talk about envisioning a return to the Moon in, say, the 2018 timeframe.</i>"</i>

 

[askold]

If NASA engineers could concentrate on the next vehicle - both dollars and manpower - there would be a higher likelihood of making a flight in 2011-2012.<br /><br />I don't see how that schedule is possible while still trying to fix and fly the shuttle.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I don't see how that schedule is possible while still trying to fix and fly the shuttle.</font>/i><br /><br />One feeling I have picked up is that while Griffin is not fond of the shuttle and ISS, he also does not like cavalierly dropping existing efforts and relationships. Hence the expedited but orderly winding down of these efforts and not simply throwing them out. Of course, there is the political dimension too.</i>

 

[JonClarke]

I always find it odd that the same people who complain that NASA does finish anything usually then turn round and want the ISS to be abandoned. <br /><br />The ISS must be finished. It is doing and will continue to do useful work. NASA's credibility demands it, and the US has meet its obligations. <br /><br />And for the knee jerk cynics who complain that source link is sketchy, this is a presentation for a talk about options for the exploration archiecture, not the archiecture itself. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The ISS must be finished. It is doing and will continue to do useful work. NASA's credibility demands it, and the US has meet its obligations.</font>/i><br /><br />Here is an interesting idea: the ISS completion and operation accelerates manned exploration and colonization of space.<br /><br />The arguments for this are the following: (1) ISS opens up a market for taxi and supply services to LEO. Private companies probably cannot jump straight to providing services too the moon (too much capital needed), but they can probably get enough capital to develop systems to service LEO. ISS will provide them that opportunity.<br /><br />(2) The delays in NASA developing the CLV+CEV buys time for the commercial companies to show that they could provide a similar service. Because the CLV+CEV won't fly until 2011-2012, the private companies (t/Space, SpaceX, etc.) will have the time to flesh out their designs and fly some initial hardware -- in short, demonstate their credibility -- by the time NASA is operational.<br /><br />(3) Because (1) and (2), private dollars flow into the space exploration, and this creates new companies, introduces new ideas, opens the door for non-government sponsored activities, and generally accelerates the process in a way that government-only dollars cannot do.<br /><br />In conclusion, completing the ISS benefits private commercialization of manned space by creating an initial orbital market and delaying the government competition. This nurturing of the private market attracts investment dollars and ultimately accelerates manned explorational and colonization of space.<br /><br />Just an idea...</i>

 

[JonClarke]

I think that could be a good way to go. in fact, I think Griffin's AIAA speech paves the way for precisely these developments. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>