The agenda for tomorrow’s first meeting of the Augustine commission has been posted. Clark Lindsey has it over at Space Transport News. I found this interesting:
3:30 pm – Alternative Architectures
DIRECT
Shuttle Side-mount Options
I understand that they have limited time for this first meeting, but I hope those aren’t the only alternatives they consider.
[Update a few minutes later]
The “alternate architectures” described above are alternate launch architectures. They need to broaden their thinking to alternate exploration architectures.
Indeed.
I’m afraid that’s a bit too pithy for me. Can you elaborate on the difference between those terms? Would “exploration architecture” widen the discussion to prop depots, space piers, etc.?
The “alternate architectures” described above are alternate launch architectures.
Actually, they’re alternative launch architectures, unless they’re going back and forth between them.
I know alternate/alternative is probably a lost cause, but some of us still have hope for the English language. At least on alternate days. 🙂
I understand that they have limited time for this first meeting, but I hope those aren’t the only alternatives they consider.
OTH, it sometimes makes sense to consider all the obviously bad ideas at the start of a meeting (or series of meetings) in order to get them out of the way.
This is not a bad set of options for the short run. And in the long run it’s best to rely on buying launch services instead of launch vehicles so the market can sort out what the best launch architecture is. The statement of task allows the commission to consider more than just launch architecture. In particular it speaks of “destinations of value beyond LEO”, which allows for L1 or even MEO staging and depots. On the other hand, it is true the focus seems to be on the launch architecture.
Unfortunately, the Commissions charter does not include looking at wider picture, they are specifically directed to look at launch architectures by the charter, and they have certainly interpreted it that way too: read the first answers to the public questions posted on hsf.nasa.gov
Meaning that the important questions wont be even asked. It certainly looks like there will be another NASA-operated launcher
It certainly looks like there will be another NASA-operated launcher
No, at most it means there will be another NASA launch vehicle development project.
The flacks lobbying for DIRECT and Shuttle C assume that if they get funding, everything will go according to plan and their wonder rocket will be built according to their plans with no changes or budget overruns.
They ignore the last thirty years of NASA attempts to replace the Space Shuttle. Every one has experienced multiple redesigns, cost growth, and finally cancellation. Yet, they believe the next one will be magically exempt.
In fact, that would be true even if NASA picked an architecture that made sense. Even the best plan can be undermined by mismanaged. But if NASA came up with a low-cost plan for getting back to the Moon, at least their might be some money left over to fund some of the smaller projects like Centennial Challenges that were sacrifed to Orion and Ares.
In my opinion, protecting those smaller smaller “innovative” projects is the most important reason for reforming Constellation.