…with existing launch systems. Senator Shelby would never allow it, though, even though the launchers would be built in his state. Just not porky enough.
9 thoughts on “How To Get To The Moon”
Comments are closed.
…with existing launch systems. Senator Shelby would never allow it, though, even though the launchers would be built in his state. Just not porky enough.
Comments are closed.
Oxidizer is generally well over half the total mass of a beyond-LEO mission’s upper stage-plus-payload for a number of different propellant mixes. I was pointing out how launching much of the oxidizer separately made for a relatively simple way of getting bigger Lunar payloads out of a pair of existing boosters, back when sinking tens (admitted) or hundreds (actual) of billions into Ares 1/5 was first being touted as essential.
I expect the idea was not new then either; it seems to me an obvious concept – to anyone not blindered by a massive political-industrial development agenda, at least.
I’m glad to see that Jon’s friends are apparently putting some serious analytical effort into the approach. I expect the whole Ares launcher development effort will at some point collapse of its own accumulated bureaucratic deadweight, just as every other post-Shuttle launcher development by that wing of NASA has collapsed for a generation now. It’ll be good to have practical near-term alternatives ready to go once the dust from that settles, just in case the nation still wants to do some actual space exploration.
Henry
I fear that sensible approaches like these will not be given an equal review with the Augustine commission. Even if Ares I goes away, its gonna get replaced by _something_ or other “shuttle-derived”, meaning it will pull along the workforce.
Judging by the top-voted questions here ( http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php ) DIRECT campaign is doing some serious lobbying already, Shuttle -C guys as well.
The fact that nobody actually needs a NASA-designed or NASA-operated launch vehicles will _never_ be publicly announced in the broad daylight.
The fact that nobody actually needs a NASA-designed or NASA-operated launch vehicles will _never_ be publicly announced in the broad daylight.
Not by NASA, that is certain. However, once Dragon is in orbit the idea of giving it a bit more range by refueling will likely occur. Other company’s independent operations will follow that as well.
NASA’s days are numbered… they are going to have to reinvent themselves.
Judging by the top-voted questions here ( http://hsf.nasa.gov/qa.php ) DIRECT campaign is doing some serious lobbying already, Shuttle -C guys as well.
Not seeing anything about Shuttle-C.
Not seeing anything about Shuttle-C.
Click forward a couple pages, its there. Theres a bunch of “fun” stuff asked about, like “human rated vehicles”, “mars vs NEOs”,”nukes in space” and all kinds of space cadet fantasies, but nothing as fundamental as why does US government have “Human Space Flight Plans”, which the Commitee will be reviewing, in the first place. Or why do these plans have to be conducted by NASA, with its own rocket fleet.
Much as it disgusts me, I think there is going to be an SDLV. Jupiter is probably the best one, provided you use it wisely which the DIRECT folks won’t. Shuttle-C may be technically less impressive, but at least it cannot be used the same way DIRECT are planning.
Not by NASA, that is certain. However, once Dragon is in orbit the idea of giving it a bit more range by refueling will likely occur.
Which is why COTS was doomed from the start. No matter how many times people say it doesn’t compete with Orion, NASA and Lockheed must know it does.
I agree with several of the preceding posts that once Ares finally collapses of its own weight, the institutional tendency (absent external intervention) will be to replace Ares with one of the other “Shuttle derived” launch vehicle concepts – a minor variation on the Ares mix of technologies that will keep a minor variation on the Ares mix of Center branches and contractors more or less fully employed.
The problem I see with this is, this would be giving tens more billions of dollars and years more precious time to the same old institutions that have failed to produce a working launcher in, let’s see, working backwards, Ares, X-38, SLI, X-33, “Shuttle II”, NASP… A generation of failure. I’m sure I’m forgetting projects even limiting it to ones that spent at least a billion before dying, but the point is, NASA in repeated tries hasn’t managed to produce one functioning launch vehicle in the thirty years since Shuttle entered test. Some of the failures were very technically ambitious, true – but Ares I was supposed to be all existing components, and developed by the existing companies and departments currently operating those components, yet they’re *still* making a hash of it. Something is deeply wrong here.
I would say that it’s now obvious that NASA is institutionally incapable of developing a significant new launch vehicle, period. All due respect to the many fine individuals scattered through the organization, but the launcher development organization itself simply doesn’t seem to be functional anymore.
The conclusion I draw is twofold: COTS plus the various minor contract crumbs NASA occasionally tosses newspace companies need to be defended vigorously. And when the time soon comes to bury Ares and figure out what next, NASA developing its own new launcher of any sort needs to be conclusively taken off the table.
Henry
No matter how many times people say [Dragon] doesn’t compete with Orion, NASA and Lockheed must know it does.
In a few years that competition will be out in the open with flights happening and the difference in costs will be glaring. Even if the government pulls completely out of funding I believe SpaceX will get there. It would be just be better if they didn’t get their funding pulled.