At last year’s Return to the Moon conference in Las Vegas, Constellation Services International (CSI) unveiled “Lunar Express”, a proposal for a lunar exploration architecture using Soyuz spacecraft that could permit human circumlunar missions within just a few years. CSI also discussed Lunar Express during a session yesterday of this year’s RTM conference. The technical details were little changed from last year, although CEO Charles Miller played up more the role Lunar Express could play in sustaining the Vision for Space Exploration as the Bush Administration transitions to its successor:
There’s going to be a new president elected in 2008. That President is going to come in and possibly say, “This ain’t my vision for space exploration, this is George Bush’s. Why should I care about this?” So there’s a key milestone here, and NASA needs to lock in political sustainability for the Vision. We could help NASA deliver two NASA astronauts around the moon before that election. That would be an early result.
Of course, for that to happen, NASA would have to sign on the Lunar Express concept pretty soon, since some new hardware and a new heat shield for the Soyuz capsule are required.
Doesn’t that heat shield design exist, used on the “Zond” spacecraft that executed just this mission in the 1960s?
More broadly, I agree with Mr. Miller. While no one could argue that this isn’t a technically and economically useless “stunt,” something like it is politically essential. This, or something like it, must happen to provide politically measurable results while Mr. Bush is still in office and before the VSE momentum is completely dissipated.
I would prefer one of the “more useful” suggestions I and others made in the past, but the time for that is rapidly disappearing. Mr. Miller’s proposal sounds like a quick-and-dirty, and a relatively cheap way, to achieve it.
— Donald
Why do you think a “stunt” would be helpful? Wouldn’t it be equally likely to alienate supporters of the program, including those who don’t like the idea of forking over hundreds of millions of dollars to the Russians to accomplish a pointless stunt?
Also, the Zond spacecraft was designed to carry one occupant, not three. It would have to be a new design, or at least highly modified.
I would prefer it were not a “stunt.” But it has to be something. If NASA starts down another long development road with no near-term flights, the VSE will die. As Congress is demonstrating by refusing to fund the Space Based Radar and Transformal Communications Architecture, there is no support for open-ended development projects without near-term payoff.
After half-a-century of development in spaceflight capability, we aught to be able to pull off something within 3.5 years.
— Donald
I agree with your (and Miller’s) prediction: If NASA starts down another long development road with no near-term flights, the VSE will probably die. And I bet that NASA has, in fact, started down another long development road with no near-term flights. Put two and two together and you get what John Pike, Alex Roland, and Steven Weinberg already predicted last year.
With Griffin’s mantra being no gap in US manned space flight, or as little a gap as possible, between Shuttle and CEV…… any particular reason for the doom/gloom about long development roads leading to the death of VSE?
It’s simple: You don’t get to space with just a mantra.
Imagine a prime-time appearance by a president, a NASA administrator, and the top Senate and House appropriations honchos. They say:
“Our fellow Americans: Yuri Gagarin and Neil Armstrong moved and inspired us all. ‘Firsts’ are important, powerfully motivating symbols, like Columbus’ voyage.
“But the day Columbus returned to Cadiz, there were hundreds of ships and crews all over Europe capable of duplicating his voyage — and making money at that and a score of other tasks. We’re not at that point in space; we’re not even close. There are indeed immense resources Out There, but making use of them will require incomparably more preparation than it took to bring home gold and spices and slaves.
“So we ask your support for a long-term, realistic approach in which government and private enterprise work together, their top priority reducing the cost and increasing the frequency and reliability of access to space — whether manned or unmanned, whether public or private, whether aimed at LEO or GEO or the Moon or Mars. We all like flags and footprints. But we think you’re grown-ups and would rather have real, sustained growth in our capabilities than more expensive candy.”
Fantasy, of course… and dangerous fantasy at that. If we started thinking about space that way, it might spread to fiscal policy, and trade, and… where would it all end?
Of course, the House by an overwelming majority just endorsed a “long term development program with no near term flights.” And the Senate is going to follow suit.
Cecil, I hope you’re right, but what will it look like 3.5 years from now? The Shuttle and Space Station will look much as they do now, the CEV will still be far from first flight, and large sums will be going down the HLLV rat hole with no visible results. By then the VSE will be circa five years old with nothing at all to show for it.
However, one hopeful thought just occurred to me. If Griffin really does push commercial supply of the Space Station hard, and does not allow NASA to use the Shuttle or a Shuttle-derived vehicle to swampt that market, then a robust commercial launch industry using Kistler, SpaceX, and the EELVs, just might be visible by Bush’s end-of-term. Then, you could make the case while pointing to something real that establishment of a lunar base could allow an early extension of commercial supply to a new world. You might be able to really point to the visible beginnings of space commerce and say “this is what we’re working toward.”
Mark, Congress may have endorsed it, but I’ll believe it when the dollars come in year after year after year.
Reader, while I agree with most of you comments, this _cannot_ be our first priority: “their top priority reducing the cost and increasing the frequency and reliability of access to space — whether manned or unmanned, whether public or private. . .” That’s what we’ve been doing ever since Apollo and it has been a miserable failure on every count. I see no reason for that to change. Instead, we need a new paradigm. We need to create markets in order to “pull” launch vehicle development, instead of “push” it. Initially high-cost bases and other infrastructure needing supply has historically created efficient transportation. There is no guarantee of success, but I feel confident in predicting that it would happen far faster than continuing to try to build efficient transportation to nowhere, with no real reason for it to exist.
Markets first, efficient transportation next.
Government bases first, alt.space next.
— Donald
It seems to me Griffin restored some of NASA’s credibility by stopping petty “for show” politics from deciding missions and timelines. Can you say robotic Hubble repair? Culture change training?
If there’s no lunar action by 2008 then so be it, just as long as the lunar plan is developed and proceeding well.
I note there’s still a large gray area around what we’re going to with the Moon when we get there – surely that drives a number of programs and requirements…
I agree it’s time to think about making markets, private ownership rights etc. Can this be formulated in a way that would be acceptable to China, India etc. in the UN?
Failing that, there’s the old-fashioned way of going there, staking your claim and defending it.
I am fundamentally opposed to relying on the Russians and their hardware to suppply and help to complete the ISS. It is ridiculous the U.S. finds itself in the position of having to rely on any other country for access to space, but that has been the case since the destruction of Columbia. The CEV and its launch vehicle should become NASA’s most aggressive program. We could have a boilerplate CEV in 3-4 years if it was pushed and we have the launch vehicles (Delta IV or Atlas V) that would not rely on any shuttle-derived vehicle that would take far longer to build.
Donald: “Cecil, I hope you’re right, but what will it look like 3.5 years from now? The Shuttle and Space Station will look much as they do now, the CEV will still be far from first flight, and large sums will be going down the HLLV rat hole with no visible results. By then the VSE will be circa five years old with nothing at all to show for it.”
In the immortal words of Ronald Reagan: there you go again.
I think you’re being a bit overly dramatic here. In 3.5 years Shuttle will have (hopefully) made about a dozen more construction flights to ISS, so neither Shuttle nor ISS will look as they do now. Shuttle will have (again, hopefully) proven itself capable of a few more relatively safe flights, and ISS will be physically changed. A prime contractor will have been picked to build CEV and there will likely have built at least some boilerplate hardware. The HLV plan will be moving along, and again likely some hardware being prepared. It wouldn’t take a Manhattan project like effort to start modifying an ET or SRB for HLV testing purposes. And with the VSE 5 years old it will be more a defined plan, remember that the first time we went to the moon the plan to do so was not born fully mature.
Donald: “Mark, Congress may have endorsed it, but I’ll believe it when the dollars come in year after year after year.”
Well last year the money came through, and it certainly looks like the money will come through… that is technically “year after year”
Donald: “We need to create markets in order to “pull” launch vehicle development, instead of “push” it. Markets first, efficient transportation next…..Government bases first, alt.space next.”
We need both, at the same time. Government and private enterprise have roles; in the more “envelope pushing” aspects government in many cases has to lead the way. But in the long haul private enterprise will be the answer to space development.
A. Young: “I am fundamentally opposed to relying on the Russians and their hardware to suppply and help to complete the ISS. It is ridiculous the U.S. finds itself in the position of having to rely on any other country for access to space, but that has been the case since the destruction of Columbia.”
I agree.
A. Young: “The CEV and its launch vehicle should become NASA’s most aggressive program. We could have a boilerplate CEV in 3-4 years if it was pushed and we have the launch vehicles (Delta IV or Atlas V) that would not rely on any shuttle-derived vehicle that would take far longer to build.”
I don’t know if you’re still on the same track as your orginal premise of not liking the idea of depending on the Russians to supply/complete ISS, but ISS cannot be completed using Delta/Atlas derived vehicles. The Shuttle is the only vehicle that can do that. I guess I don’t understand what you propose we do about ISS with your assertion of building the CEV and launch system within 3-4 years?
Stunt or no stunt, using a Russian leftover from the 1960’s to send two Americans on a rather pointless circumlunar mission would be the epitome of stupid PR. Even if people would buy the notion that the mission had a legitimate purpose, the use of the Soyuz would only confirm this country’s apparent fumbling inability to act in space.
It would be nice if we had missions between the demise of the Shuttle and the arrival of the CEV that would play to the circus that is the public. But, we are hobbled, as we have been for 30 years, by bad decisions made in the 1970’s.
Cecil: “remember that the first time we went to the moon the plan to do so was not born fully mature.”
…and look what happened. At $80,000/kg to the Lunar surface and without a clue of what to do there the program died and we lost the ability to go.
Buzz Aldrin once said the next time we go anywhere, we should do it in a sustainable way. He’s right. No more one-offs.
There are many ways to use the Moon (including commercially) and NASA needs to plan for them and make them happen – otherwise the next president might think there is no specific reason to continue.
Cecil: “I don’t know if you’re still on the same track as your orginal premise of not liking the idea of depending on the Russians to supply/complete ISS, but ISS cannot be completed using Delta/Atlas derived vehicles. The Shuttle is the only vehicle that can do that. I guess I don’t understand what you propose we do about ISS with your assertion of building the CEV and launch system within 3-4 years?”
I was, in hindsight, discussing two issues here. You are right, the shuttle is the only means of completing the ISS. No ELV can do that. With regard to the CEV, I am suggesting using either exlisting launch vehicles such as the Delta IV, Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V to launch the boiler place version. However, in the spirit of Little Joe II which launched the Apollo capsule BP, perhaps using an SRB derivitive with internal guidance might do the initial launches.
In response to the expressed sentiment here… I’m not quite sure that the average American taxpayer* would prefer paying *billions* paying for an all-American governmental “stunt” (the currently proposed Apollo-like VSE) rather than paying *millions* to the Russians for a private “stunt”.
I know I would choose the latter… (‘private’ being the keyword, after all I own a Toyota assembled in Mexico…, and my underpants were ‘built’ in the commie china — gasp!?) I have no idea why the *space industry* (as opposed to a *space program*) should be shielded from globalization.
*although, where I come from (the east bay/San Jose area) the average taxpayer wouldn’t give a damn one way or the other as the average taxpaying person’s notion of “space exploration” is delimited by the Star Trek and the Babylon-5 shows.
Parker: “Cecil: “remember that the first time we went to the moon the plan to do so was not born fully mature.”
…and look what happened. At $80,000/kg to the Lunar surface and without a clue of what to do there the program died and we lost the ability to go.”
One has nothing to do with the other. I was speaking to the attitude of some who seem to think that at the ripe old age of ~18 months the VSE should be fully defined down to launch dates and crew names.
“I was speaking to the attitude of some who seem to think that at the ripe old age of ~18 months the VSE should be fully defined down to launch dates and crew names.”
Don’t be ridiculous.
If we are to return to the Moon and use its resources for new endeavors, then NASA must outwardly start to engage in efforts to:
– design a manned lunar settlement
– understand that settlement as a closed biosphere, where mass is a premium, resupply expensive and recyling necessary to a higher degree than the space station.
– quantify the logistics involved. Mass budgets, energy budgets, cost budgets…It only has to be an estimate to start with, just to figure out if these needs can be met with what we have/plan to have.
– define requirements for transportation and all manner of equipment for lunar construction and operations. Cranes, dirt movers, greenhouses etc.
– assemble a list of the scientific opportunities available, such as from a lunar telescope.
In essence, we need a focused and self-consistent quantitative conceptual design of the whole lunar operation: There needs to be brainstorming, items prioritized and the most important thought through now – we can’t suddenly tackle these issues once the new launchers are built because the gotcha’s that would endanger the program need to be found long before that.
For example how can we plan launchers for resupply when we don’t even know what activities we will be resupplying on the Moon and how often? Sure, we know the resupply rate of a two person space station running janitorial duties – is that what we’re planning for on the Moon? I hope not.
I note that NASA has started some research on how to process regolith into useful materials. I’m most encouraged by this and I very much look forward to the results. It’s also great to hear that Rand’s space glove idea got traction! We need more developments like this.
Now you’re the one being ridiculous, IMHO. Your listed items ARE things that need to be done but the suggestion that none will be considered until “the new launchers are built” is another example of exaggerating the situation in an attempt to prove your point.
There is no evidence that NASA will wait until “launchers are built” and then declare “Oh, what are we gonna do with ‘em?” By your own admission in your last sentence NASA is already working on some things they certainly will not need until 2015 at the earliest, IE in situ utilization of lunar resources.