Here’s a nice animation of ISS assembly. One of the most tragic things about the current approach to the Vision for Space Exploration is that it completely ignores all of the experience gained in orbital assembly over the past decade, instead reverting to Apollo on Geritol.
[Update a couple minutes later]
What a coincidence. I just got an email titled “Gee, Scolese Sounds Like A Critic Of ESAS” (I don’t know if the sender wants to be attributed):
I’m watching the Appropriations hearing, and in response to a question from Chairman Mollohan re plans for moon exploration, etc… Scolese talks about ISS as an example of success at assembling complex systems in LEO and that he would like to see NASA come up with an architecture to build things and then go explore.
Gee. What a concept.
You’ll have to get the transcript, but it sounds pretty treasonous…
At this point, just making Scolese the formal administrator is sounding pretty good to me.
[Update early afternoon]
Rob Coppinger is live twittering the hearing (not a permalink). And he has some thoughts on Scolese’ testimony as well:
In an extraordinary exchange between NASA acting adminisrator Christoper Scolese and the US House of Representatives’ committee on appropriations’ subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies chair, Scolese said that the agency was still working on what “return to the Moon” meant and whether that was a outpost, which he went on to describe as expensive, or an extended sortie like Apollo
So much for Apollo on steroids…
Let’s hope.
[Late afternoon update]
Here’s more extensive coverage of the testimony:
“We were looking at an outpost on the moon, as the basis for that [2020] estimate and that one is being revisited,” he said. “It will probably be less than an outpost on the moon, but where it fits between sorties, single trips, to the moon to various parts and an outpost is really going to be dependent on the studies that we’re going to be doing.”
“Recall [that] the Vision [for Space Exploration] was not just to go to the moon as it was in Apollo, it was to utilise space to go on to Mars and to go to other places,” he added. “We’ve demonstrated over the last several years that with multiple flights we can build a very complex system reliably – the space station – involving multiple nations…and we’ll need something like that if we’re going to go to Mars.”
Scolese’s further comments hinted that the agency’s plans might shift to include a greater emphasis on destinations beyond the moon. “So what I would like to see from NASA over time is an architecture that…will give us flexibility for taking humans beyond low-Earth orbit and allowing us to have options for what we can do at the moon as well as other destinations…[like] Mars or an asteroid…so that there are options on what we do in 2020,” he said.
Good news, bad news. The good news is that (as noted up above) he’s more interested in building an in-space infrastructure than Mike Griffin ever was. The bad news is that he’s backing off from the commitment to a lunar outpost. On the other hand, the in-space infrastructure may allow a revisiting of that issue if it can be shown to reduce the costs of lunar operations. And ESAS would never have allowed an affordable lunar outpost in any event. The activity rate would have been far too low.
[Bumped]
Scolese said that the agency was still working on what “return to the Moon” meant and whether that was a outpost, which he went on to describe as expensive, or an extended sortie like Apollo
So much for Apollo on steroids…
Let’s hope.
Hope for what? Sounds to me like Scolese was advocating “Apollo on steroids” by claiming that “extended sorties” was the way to go and that a lunar outpost is “expensive.” It doesn’t have to be, if the agency were to actual implement the original intent of the VSE and learn how to use lunar resources to create new spaceflight capabilities. But NASA will no doubt find a way to make lunar return both expensive and unsustainable.
Maybe. I’d like to see the transcript, rather than just Rob’s synopsis, to figure out what he really has in mind.
“Apollo on geritol.”
Man that was good.
This passage would appear to support a lunar “touch-n-go” interpretation of the VSE (from the New Scientist material quoted in the main post):
Scolese’s further comments hinted that the agency’s plans might shift to include a greater emphasis on destinations beyond the moon. “So what I would like to see from NASA over time is an architecture that…will give us flexibility for taking humans beyond low-Earth orbit and allowing us to have options for what we can do at the moon as well as other destinations…[like] Mars or an asteroid…so that there are options on what we do in 2020,” he said.
I am also reminded of the words “lunar exit strategy” used in prior Congressional testimony.
While I agree that there should be flexibility to go to other places than the Moon, it is IMO required to have a viable outpost there before expanding elsewhere. Just look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget
I point out that with a Moon base and ISRU it would be relatively cheap to engage in building orbital solar power, or lunar solar power, giant telescopes with no atmosphere to block the view, etc. The problem with the moon is the lack of volatiles which are required as propellant for most propulsion methods at our disposal.
IMO the major challenges for ISRU are energy and propellant extraction.
There is alot of hoopla about surrounding Scolese’s comments regarding the moon base, but I’d like to offer an alternative interpretation. If you really look at his comments, they were regarding a question concerning where NASA would be in 2020.
Perhaps his somewhat vague response was not a full retraction of the lunar architecture, but simply protecting a schedule slip where base construction would not be underway in 2020, and instead NASA would still be stuck in sortie mode?
“While I agree that there should be flexibility to go to other places than the Moon, it is IMO required to have a viable outpost there before expanding elsewhere.”
Agreed, and before that they should be required to develop either depots or gateway stations (preferably both). And keep the ISS or a replacement indefinitely.