Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Yeah and best of all it seems bipartisan.

But would the same people support a Direct v2 Jupiter?

I'm feeling torn over the issue of EELVs vs. Direct v2.

I love the idea of NASA not getting bogged down building "new" rockets but at the same time the Direct v2 plans are just so straightforward, beautiful, and sane. It's probably what should have been done from the very start decades ago, or at least very close to it. Direct v2 would of course also mollify the politicians and constituencies having a stake in the current Shuttle workforce, infrastructure, and so on.

Still a NASA under pressure to use EELVs only might give us orbital refueling...

What would the rest of you choose? EELV or Direct v2?

p.s. Santa if you're reading this what I want for Christmas is Congress forcing NASA to do Direct v2 and also orbital refueling ^_^

Posted by Habitat Hermit at June 12, 2007 12:42 PM

I'd probably go with EELV. It's there, it's built, it's potentially cheap. For all that Zubrin hates orbital construction, if we can figure out how to build modules out of Legos rather than model kits, we should be able to handle it, and we need the skill anyways.

Plus, the size of the resulting payloads would be closer to what SpaceX and Kistler could handle, for even *less* money.

Posted by Big D at June 12, 2007 01:01 PM

Is Mark Whittington contemplating, maybe, the possibility of leaving the sinking ship?

I'm an agnostic on the question of hardware, though I've maintained that no one has give proof to my satisfaction that retrofitting an EELV is a superior solution.

Sigh. The cost numbers are quite clear. If hard numbers are not sufficient proof to satisfy Mark, what would be?

Just saying he says he's "agnostic" about the hardware represents significant progress, however, compared to his past statements.

There have been other potential solutions (L1 fuel depots for instance) that seem to have more utility in my opinion.

On the other hand, this statement is a bit bizarre. L1 fuel depots have merit, but they are not a potential solution for Earth-to-LEO launch.

Moreover, if NASA builds Ares 1 and ESAS, they won't have money for things like an L1 depot. If they switched to EELV, they would.

So, what is Mark trying to say here?

Those who might cheer this potential development might want to think about two things. How much savings really would happen if the Ares 1 were cancelled in 2009 or 2010 and NASA had to essentially start all over again with--say--an Atlas V heavy?

Now, this is just annoying. Mark keeps asking this as if it's a rhetorical question.

The answer is at least $8 billion, not including the recurring cost of maintaining the Shuttle infrastructure at KSC (which EELV doesn't need).

There's no need to "start over" with a new Atlas heavy. Orion could be downsized to fit on existing Atlas or Delta rockets, which would have significant safety advantages as well. If the crew were split between two capsules, one could aid the other in case of an emergency. That's why military pilots always fly with a wingman.

And, what sort of pandora's box is going to be opened if politicians start designing the architecture to send people back to the Moon? We've been down that road before and the results have not been pretty.

Hm. The current architecture was designed by a political appointee named Mike Griffin. I thought Mark believed the architecture should be designed by politicians, because the private sector is incompetent?

I guess he means *elected* politicians should not be involved. As Mark says, we've gone down that road before. The Apollo architecture had a lot of political oversight -- Congressional hearings, White House panels, etc. NASA had to justify every decision. They were not given a blank check to build whatever they wanted, as Griffin was.

So, what is Mark saying here? Is he now realizing that Apollo was a mistake? That the process was a flawed and the results were "not pretty"? In that case, shouldn't VSE look beyond "Apollo on Steroids"?

Posted by Edward Wright at June 12, 2007 01:25 PM

Ed Wright is, as usual, blathering and misrepresenting. His idea to "downsize" the Orion and double the amount of launches necessary to send people to the Moon makes no engineering or ecomomic sense whatsoever. It doesn't even pass the laugh test.

I have a number of observations about Keith's report.

Keith has not been able to tell us who these people are and for whom they work, since I suspect they spoke off the record. The reason the question is important is that if these people are working for--say--Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, their disquiet with Ares 1 is an interesting fact that will likely have no effect on reality. If they work, however, for Fred Thompson or Hillary Clinton, then the fact is more significent.

I also wonder if cancelling Ares 1 and replacing it with an EELV (provided that is even possible, which no one has proven to me yet) will save all that much money if it is done in 2009 (or more likely, 2010, since usually it takes about a year to get a new NASA administrator in place and get him up to speed.) If the project has been coming along and is closer to completion, then the case for suddenly cancelling it and starting over again is very weak.

Finally, do the people cheering this possibility really want to have politicians designing rockets, even if initially the result may be something they want? Politicians are not engineers and tend to make decisions that pay more attention to political advantage than to engineering reality. If we open up the design of the rocket that's suppose to take the Orion into orbit to the political process, I strongly fear that the result will not be very pretty.

Posted by MarkWhittington at June 12, 2007 02:36 PM

Once again Mark is trying to bait me (but won't allow my comments on his little page). OK, I'll bite: No, this has nothing to do with Kucinich or Paul ... hate to burst your rhetorical balloon, Mark.

As for the other names, sounds about right to me - but its more than just *two* candidates - and it is more than just candidates - its party people as well ... and guess what: this actually has to do with people thinking about market forces and solutions - in both parties - what a shock!

NASA and the government cancel big programs all the time Mark - for good reasons and bad reasons. Why should Ares be immune from such a possibility?

Posted by Keith Cowing at June 12, 2007 02:48 PM

Maybe that John Young feller actually knows a thing or two...

Posted by Ed Minchau at June 12, 2007 02:51 PM

Keith, I'm not trying to bait you. I'm just stating some facts. As for me not allowing comments on my little blog, look at the one here by Ed Wright and I think you'll figure out why.

As for the possibility of Ares getting cancelled for "good reasons or bad", you are of course correct. But I thought that anti Ares crowd who are jumping up and down about your story might want to understand the down side.

Ed Minchau - John Young knows quite a bit. But his last prediction of the Ares' demise did not pan out. May 23rd came and went without any Earth shaking news.

Posted by MarkWhittington at June 12, 2007 03:48 PM

Keith,

Can you give us anymore details? Obviously we do not want you to name your sources although I would bet my bottom dollar two of them are Lori Garver and someone in the Gingrich camp.

What exactly do these politico people want to do? Cancel Ares I and leave Ares V? Support a Direct type concept? Support an existing EELV based program? Support staying in earth orbit and flying a minimal EELV based station access by Orion program while dropping the moon part? Support a robust enhanced EELV program or some combination of the above?

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 12, 2007 03:59 PM

As for me not allowing comments on my little blog, look at the one here by Ed Wright and I think you'll figure out why.

But you expect me to post your comments on my blog. And you can post here. But no one but you ever gets their opinion on your blog. I am confused, Mark. Are you afraid of something?

But I thought that anti Ares crowd who are jumping up and down about your story might want to understand the down side.

And of course Mark, no one would have thought of that until YOU offered the advice ... Gee, thanks for looking out for America's space program ... just who are you a "space analyst" for anyway?

As for the other inquiries - I've posted what I can.

Posted by Keith Cowing at June 12, 2007 04:40 PM

Don't be hypocritical Keith, you generally don't allow comments on your site either.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 12, 2007 05:21 PM

His idea to "downsize" the Orion and double the amount of launches necessary to send people to the Moon makes no engineering or ecomomic sense whatsoever. It doesn't even pass the laugh test.

That's the problem, Mark. Your analyses are based solely on your "laugh test." Never once have you tried to support your opinion with facts, figures, or calculations.

Saying it's "laughable" to double the number of rocket launches says a lot about your psychology ("the tyranny of low expectations"). It says nothing about space technology and operations.

In 1906, you would have laughed at the idea of doubling the number of airplane flights. In 1976, you would have laughed at the idea of doubling the number of computers.

NASA plans to fly Ares I 2-3 times a year. Doubling that would get them up to 4-6 flights per year. That's approaching the flight achieved in the Gemini program 40 years ago.

Every other form of transportation has become more common and less expensive over time, but you think launch rates can only go down, never up? An expensive space transportation system, like the Shuttle, can only be replaced by a more expensive system, like Ares? NASA should spend more and more money to send fewer and fewer astronauts into space?

I also wonder if cancelling Ares 1 and replacing it with an EELV (provided that is even possible, which no one has proven to me yet) will save all that much money if it is done in 2009

Even if it was done in 2009, it would save the annual upkeep and operating costs on the Shuttle infrastructure, which amounts to a couple billion a year.

This has been explained to you many times in the past, Mark, but you just keep quacking that "no one has proven" it. As if numbers did not exist in your world.

Furthermore, there's no reason why Congress needs to wait until 2009 to make changes. That's a red herring.

Finally, do the people cheering this possibility really want to have politicians designing rockets, even if initially the result may be something they want?

Reality check. Mike Griffin is a politician -- specifically, an unelected bureaucrat.

So, obviously, Mark, you do want politicians designing rockets. I would prefer to allow the private sector to do it. I'm still waiting for you to explain why that's a bad idea.

Of course, this is irrelevant because no one has to design EELV. It is already designed.

Politicians are not engineers and tend to make decisions that pay more attention to political advantage than to engineering reality.

Mark, I think you just pegged the irony meter. :-)

You're not an engineer, nor do you listen to engineers. Or politicians, either, for that matter. You just insist that we believe your version of "political reality," which seems to have little to do with politics or reality.

If we open up the design of the rocket that's suppose to take the Orion into orbit to the political process, I strongly fear that the result will not be very pretty.

Whether you like it or not, Mark, Apollo was designed under an open political process. It was not a black project, and there was much more political oversight and input than there has been with Orion. Design decisions were scrutinized by the Congress, the White House, and the independent Wiesner panel. They were not given the sort of free hand you are demanding today.

So, was Apollo "not very pretty"? Was it screwed up because engineers were held accountable to elected officials?

(I'll bet dollars to donuts that Mark refuses to answer that question again.)

Posted by Edward Wright at June 12, 2007 05:42 PM

From the very first ESAS report I smelled a skunk. The report itself claimed the original 5.5m diameter CEV was scaled UP to fit the anticipated payload of the Ares I! You don't need a 5.5m capsule for a 4 man lunar mission. Clearly Griffin rigged the game against EELV selection from the very beginning.

A sensible alternative architecture would fly a CEV scaled to fit the Atlas 401 for crew launch, and use a shuttle derived sidemount design for a cargo launcher.

A sidemount cargo launcher could use the current shuttle SRB and ET and replace the SSME, OMS and orbiter with an expendable rocket/cargo pod using RS-68 and RL-10. Such a simpler launcher wouldn't have the 130+ tonnes payload of the Ares V but much more importantly a sidemount launcher would only cost a fraction of the 15 billion plus dollars the Ares V will cost in development and infrastructure costs.

Posted by Brad at June 13, 2007 12:26 AM

Of course we don't want "politicians" designing our space systems. We shouldn't dictate to the contractor's how to get the job done. My God! Did you pay ANY attention to how the current VSE architecture came to be? Try looking here:
http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/cev.htm and read about the study results from the contractors in phase I which were subsequently IGNORED in order to put NASA's preferred option in place. The discussions on this site about LEO and L1 depots and EELV launch vehicles are not fevered imagination. They were the recommended alternatives from multiple of our most experienced aerospace companies having been paid to study the matter and with incentive to design the best plan!

Posted by Skeptic at June 13, 2007 08:17 AM

.
.
.
EELVs, Falcon-9, Dragon, CXV...
.
it's from the early days of the ESAS plan that I read on forums and blogs LOTS of peoples suggesting them as possible alternatives to the Ares-I, Ares-V and Orion, but, unfortunately, these are NOT real alternatives NOW and could be used ONLY under some conditions
.
NewSpace Companies' chances of success:
so far, they have NOT accomplished just ONE 100% successful orbital launch, while, to replace the Ares-I, they must develop an RS-68/SSME class engine and use it to build a 30 mT payload VERY RELIABLE rocket (then, it can't be the Falcon-9 that has less payload and too much engines to be man-rated) that should show a good launch rate
that effort needs very much time and money, so, they could succeed ONLY if NASA will fail with the Ares-I or the Ares-I development will need too much time (8+ years) as explained in my NewMars thread here: http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5390
.
EELVs' chances of success:
the best success rate EELVs have less than HALF the payload the (current design) Orion+LAS needs to launch, the, they can be used ONLY if the Orion will be RESIZED down to a Soyuz-like capsule
the biggest EELVs on the market (Proton, Ariane5 and Delta IV Heavy) have a likewise smaller max payload than necessary so, if they can/will be man-rated, could be used ONLY for the orbital/ISS launches (with less propellent in the SM tanks, 2 mT rather than 8 mT for TEI) and/or a 30% resized lunar-Orion as explained in this article: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/010arianecev.html
launch the 30 mT Orion+LAS needs the development of a bigger, cheap, safe, reliable and man-rated EELV that needs very much MONEY and TIME (with many unmanned launches, to know its real success rate) so, I'm not sure if a new and bigger EELV would cost less than the Ares-I or could be ready to fly sooner
.
Ares-I's chances of success:
in its current version the Ares-I's chances are LOW due to the problems NASA must solve to develop and launch it and MAINLY due to the (3-years/$3Bn R&D) 5-segments SRB and the (6-years/1Bn R&D) J-2x, so, it could be ready to fly when many bigger EELVs and private rockets will be already available on the market (from years!) at a fraction of the Ares-I price!
the 5-segments Ares-I could increase its chances of success ONLY if NASA adopts SOON (and modify for air-start) a ready available engine like the Vulcain-2 as explained in this article: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/024aresF.html
.
REVISED Orion/Ares-I chances of success:
(in my opinion) the ESAS plan has lots of mistakes, but "the mother of all ESAS mistakes" clearly IS the TOO BIG ORION that (obviously) needs a TOO BIG ARES-I
since all ISS and moon missions will have a cerw of 3/4 astronauts, there is NO NEED of a bigger six-seats ("2045's Mars missions ready") Orion but just a RESIZED 4-seats version (that needs a resized SM, LAS and Ares-I)
this is the ONLY way for NASA to develop and LAUNCH the Orion/Ares-I duo with a reasonable amount of money and within a reasonable amount of time, so (maybe) it could be launched in 2013 (just three years after the Shuttle retirement)
here some links about how to design a smaller, simpler and LIGHTER Orion, LAS and Ares-I:
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/019orionlight.html
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/020newLAS.html
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/022orionTPS.html
.
May 12, 2006 "FAST-SLV" (or August 2006 and January 2007 ***SIMILAR""" "Direct" and "Jupiter") chances of success:
MY (May 12, 2006) IDEA of a "FAST-SLV" (made with cheaper, ready available and man-rated engines and motors) [ http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html ] (or the ***LATER*** and ***SIMILAR*** Direct/Jupiter) could have some chances of success ONLY if the Ares-I will fail, but, if NASA will have enough time and money to develop it, the chances for MY "FAST-SLV" concept (or the ***LATER*** and ***SIMILAR*** Direct/Jupiter) should be nearly ZERO
.

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at June 13, 2007 04:53 PM

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at June 13, 2007 04:54 PM

.
sorry for the double post, please delete one of them
.

Posted by at June 13, 2007 04:55 PM

Post a comment