Eric Berger has Part 3 of his series up now:
Working with engineers at Johnson Space Center, as well as five other field centers, and using same tools NASA uses to estimate costs, Miller says, “We found we could put astronauts on the moon within a decade, inside the existing budget.”
The plan used the commercially available Delta IV Heavy rocket to conduct a steady stream of missions to the lunar surface, allowing humans to begin tapping into the moon’s resources.
“We briefed it to all the key NASA human spaceflight centers, giving them a chance to challenge the conclusion,” Miller said. “I thought it was a tremendous result for human spaceflight. We could have a plan that flies early and flies often.”
NASA never published the study and Miller’s contract wasn’t renewed.
Not enough opportunities for graft.
We briefed it to all the key NASA human spaceflight centers, giving them a chance to challenge the conclusion,” Miller said. “I thought it was a tremendous result for human spaceflight. We could have a plan that flies early and flies often.”
NASA never published the study and Miller’s contract wasn’t renewed.
One weeps.
Where is Snowden when you need him?
NASA had its own plan in this vein, it was called OASIS (Orbital Aggregation Space Infrastructure System).
The study and the charts that go behind it disappeared from NASA’s websites. I still have them.
Also, the CE&R studies for the most part did not use a heavy lift architecture…..
It is not like it is not known that this will work.
It’s available elsewhere, though (e.g., http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/old_site/academics/484S03/oasis_docs/OASIS_FY01_FINAL.PDF) — just google it.
He was a political appointee, not a contractor.
His plan (which he’s still promoting as a lobbyist) is basically ISS 2 on the Moon. Once again, he assumes that NASA will manage the program his way, there will be no cost overruns, and the multinational multigovernmental station will quickly evolve into a thriving commercial community.
Because that always work.
NASA could accomplish a low-cost manned landing mission to the Moon by thinking *small*. The Early Lunar Access proposal of 1993 showed you could do it with only 52 mT required to LEO, within the capabilities of even the first, interim version of the SLS, or the Falcon Heavy, or two flights of the Delta IV Heavy:
Encyclopedia Astronautica.
Early Lunar Access.
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm
Bob Clark
I don’t know why people consider Early Lunar Access “small.” It called for a 20,140 kg lunar lander, substantially larger than the Apollo LM (14,696 kg) and five times the size of the lander from JSC’s 1995 Human Lunar Return study (4,565 kg).
And remember that conceptual design studies are merely starting points. NASA has a history of low-balling programs to get initial funding. Once the development money starts to flow, the design quickly grows to consume every available dollar –and then some. “An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.”
If the government wants a lunar base, it would do much better to offer guaranteed service purchases, setting aside $X billion to buy room and board for NASA scientists for N man-years, from the first company or companies that can provide it. Or offer a prize, or series of prizes, as Newt Gingrich has proposed. Or tax incentives, or guaranteed property deeds for successful developers.
Small in the sense of total mass to LEO. Apollo required the huge, and hugely expensive, Saturn V at 130 metric tons capacity to orbit. Constellation required the similarly sized, and similarly costly, Ares V. Not having to pay for the huge development cost for a huge launcher would cut tremendously from the development cost, if we used the Falcon Heavy, paid for by SpaceX, or the Delta IV Heavy, already developed.
Also extremely important is the in-space stages would not need to be newly developed from scratch, with large development cost, but rather derived from already existing stages, such as the Centaur. Dave Masten estimated his Centaur-derived horizontal lander could be built for a few tens of millions of dollars. Contrast this with the $10 billion dollar estimate NASA gave for the Altair lander’s development.
Then when you consider the Earth departure stage (EDS) would also cost only a few million dollars of additional development cost when Centaur-derived, you reach the startling conclusion the development cost for such a lunar program could be counted in the tens of millions of dollars range(!) This compared to the tens of billions of dollars in development cost for the NASA proposals for lunar return. That’s a difference of three orders of magnitude in development cost.
And the cost per flight? Say we used the Falcon Heavy at $120 million per launch. The Centaurs cost in the range $30 million each. The cost of integrating them all together plus the development cost in the tens of millions divided over several flights, might bring the cost per flight to the $200 million range. The Apollo program cost in the range $150 billion converted to current dollars. Over seven Moon launches that’s $20 billion per launch. Again that’s a difference in cost of three orders of magnitude.
Bob Clark
In that last sentence above that should say a difference of two orders of magnitude. On the other hand, if SpaceX does succeed at cutting to the price to orbit by reusability it might be three orders of magnitude cheaper than the Apollo flights.
Bob Clark
Is Bolden deranged?
In the interview he claims that SLS is real, but that Falcon heavy is not, apparently the engines and Command module for SLS exist, but that the engines and Command module for Falcon Heavy don’t exist. He claims that you can’t just take the core of three Falcon 9 rockets and, with a bit of work, join them together to make the Falcon Heavy “it’s not that easy in rocketry”, OK, but the Delta IV heavy is based on three of the CBC’s used in the single core Delta IV.
Am I missing something?
Seems to me that Bolden, if not deranged, is just another politician, happy to use double standards and deception to advance his cause.
IIRC F9H is supposed to use propellant cross-feeding so it will not be as easy to do as a Delta IV Heavy. But yeah it shouldn’t be impossible either.
The cross-feed is for the heaviest payloads. Even without it, the Falcon Heavy could lift 45 metric tons to LEO:
http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
Bob Clark
Bolden isn’t deranged, he’s consistent. He did say that F9 Heavy doesn’t exist, while SLS does, but I have no doubt he’ll say that after Falcon Heavy is in orbit and SLS is still a powerpoint rocket using leftover SSME engines. (I’m near certain that Falcon Heavy will launch before SLS – even NASA no longer believes SLS will fly in 2017.
Arguably, the most important part of a launch vehicle are the engines. Here too, Bolden is consistent in saying SLS exists and FH doesn’t; The SLS main engines, the RS-25E they plan to use (except for the 15 old SSME’s they plan to use initially) exist; NASA has a spec sheet showing that they require an engine that’s cheaper and simpler than the SSME while also achieving higher performance and lower weight than the SSME. (That spec sheet is the basis for the SLS claimed payload). They don’t have a design yet, but the RS-25E engine exists, while the Merlin 1D doesn’t. Consistency, gotta love it.
There’s also the capsule issue. Bolden is again being consistent by saying that Orion exists while Dragon does not. In fact, an Orion unmanned test vehicle (largely boilerplate, no life support, etc) might fly as early as 2018, which draws ever nearer, whereas the date we’ll first see an unmanned Dragon reach orbit moves ever further away.
Bolden is nothing if not consistent.
/sarc
Does anyone know if Charles Miller’s study, mentioned in the story, is available online?
There appears to be a link to a “leaked” copy of the research here:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1577
I doubt it will ever be released. Charles prefers to work behind the scenes. He only releases information on a “need to know” basis.
I’m reminded of the Seinfeld episode where George is on the floor with his pants down. Jerry says, “And you want to be my latex salesman.”
Rephrase that to, “And you want to run our healthcare system.”
The assumption everyone makes is NASA is about the commercial development of space. It’s not. Its about keeping the “rice bowls” filled in the key Congressional Districts. Anything that endangers that is a non starter…
The delta/v required to get to a Mars transfer orbit (including the TMI burn) from Earth’s surface is
13.8 kps. From the moon’s surface it’s 2.9 kps. Therefor, if there is an economical way to extract fuel from the Moon, it makes a heck of a lot of sense to do so. This, however, is only true if you’re building a capacity to go to Mars or elsewhere often. If, on the other hand, you’re planning on just a few mission (like Apollo) at enormous cost and then never going again, there’s no point in developing ISRU. This tells me much about the way NASA thinks.
It’s also a heck of a lot less propulsive delta/v to get to LEO from the Moon than from earth; 10kps vs. about 2.6 kps (plus some mild airocapture not requiring a heat shield). So, supplying LEO and GEO from the moon (or even from Mars) makes a heck of a lot more sense than doing it from Earth for things that can be made ISRU. In space, Delta/v matters far more than distance, so in that regard both the Moon and Mars are a lot closer to LEO than we are on Earth.