Yesterday’s announcement that NASA will fly an impactor probe to the Moon as a secondary payload on the rocket that will launch the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter was, in some respects, allegorical: NASA’s long-term lunar exploration plans also appear to be on a collision course with technical and budgetary realities. NasaSpaceFlight.com reports that both the CEV and the LSAM lunar lander are now too heavy to carry out the mission architecture in the original ESAS study. NASA is reportedly either looking at descoping the LSAM into something that closely resembled (at least in performance) the original Apollo lunar lander, or a radical new architecture that involves parking the CEV at the Earth-Moon L2 point rather than in lunar orbit. On top of that are reports that the cost of the Crew Launch Vehicle, the SRB-derived launcher for the CEV, is, well, skyrocketing: US Space News reported that the cost to develop the CLV first stage may increase $800 million to $2.1 billion, as a result of going to a five-segment SRB.
These changes are certainly going to add to NASA’s near-term budget squeeze, and even raise questions about the exploration program in general. As NASA deputy administrator Shana Dale said last week at the National Space Symposium:
We find ourselves at a critical juncture in the nation’s
space program. We – and when I say “we” I’m not just
talking about NASA, I’m talking about every community
represented in this room and other communities we have
yet to tap into – “We” need to lay a strong and enduring
foundation for the Vision for Space Exploration, through
demonstrable progress with programs and hardware and
through effective delivery of our message to the American
public and to citizens of other nations. Developing the
strategic message is critical to building broad-based
understanding and support and it is something I will be
actively engaged in, with the help of all offices and
Centers within NASA and the help of many of you here
today. We have two years to set this solid foundation so
that the Vision can endure through future Administrations
and Congresses.
Right now, that foundation appears a little less solid than might be desired.
Why give such credence to rumor and speculation from NASA Watch and NasaSpaceFlight? The former specializes in nit picking and bashing NASA, the second in leaking internal documents, and both make money in the process. Building an analysis on such weak foundations seems a waste of good sand.
Leaked documents are fair game in journalism, and if they are demonstrably official documents, they are probably a lot more reliable than the “official” propaganda out of the press office and spokespeople.
On to the subject at hand, maybe it’s time to go back to Mr. O’Keefe’s original “vision” of a minimum lunar infrastructure launched with small spacecraft on top of EELVs. I’ve said all along that high costs will kill this, and we’re seeing it happen before our eyes.
— Donald
It’s not just high costs that will kill it, but increasing and uncertain costs. If the costs are high, you can always bite the bullet and shell out the money. If the costs have doubled before detailed design even began, relevant performance parameters have been reduced by a factor of two, and supposedly “critical” ground rules have been tossed out the window, the people paying the bills will rightfully have no confidence that NASA won’t be back in three years saying “oh, hey, sorry, but it’s going to cost $10 billion (or more!) more to do this.”
The $500 billion figure from the 90-day Space Exploration Initiative study killed any hope of human exploration beyond low-earth orbit for 15 years. Remember those “This is just a concept. NASA has no plans to send people to the Moon or Mars” disclaimers on all of the concept pictures?
I’m afraid they just did it again.
So, ciclops, am I to understand that NASAWatch and NASASpaceFlight shouldn’t be trusted in part because they make money? I looked at the .ppt slides that they’ve put up over at NSF at they had at least the appearance of credibility. Granted, I didn’t understand all of the content, and did find a couple errors, but they were at the overall level of obtuseness (i.e. the point of the slide was indistinctly perceived) that it felt like this was NASA content I was looking at. What I saw was disquieting.
The 95 day loiter requirement for the first part is telling me that there is some kind of facilities and/or operations restraint that requires such a long time between launches (maybe they realized they can only run the crawlers at half speed ;-). Note the overall transit times (~15 days, vs. 7 on the surface) with the L-2 rendezvous. Am I right in that the CEV will carry 4 people, the downscaled Lunar vehicle carries 2, leaving 2 persons in orbit? And so forth. I would have had a lot of questions at that briefing.
I’m kind of with Donald on this one in that O’Keefe seemed to be on the right path with the development, as much as it was criticized. It was all very open, there was commentary, the focus was on building capabilities, the public working sessions of the different planning groups allowed for the teensiest bit of public participation (i.e. I got to talk to a couple of the workers very briefly during the breaks). Everyone on the planet got to download the initial industry proposals (about the same time the ATK architecture was being wrapped up. I have a DVD whose files are from August 04 outlining the architecture, and Boeing featured the Shaft CEV on at least one of their slides, so they knew about it too) and so they could be debated publicly. I don’t get that feeling so much now.
It has the ring of truth, but we should be a little skeptical until the stories are confirmed. Also, this is probably one of many dozens of trade studies. One bad trade outcome does not mean they will not find a better path.
But if the stories are true, and it turns out that these cost overruns are being driven by the two recent decisions to:
– eliminate the Methane engine on LSAM to reduce a little technical risk, and
– eliminate the SSME as the upperstage on the SRB to save a few bucks …
Then one obvious and simple option is to reverse these two decisions.
If the stories are true, reversing course appears to be MUCH better than the alternatives.
– Al
Does anyone have a link to the actual O’Keefe Multiple EELV Lunar Architecture proposal?
Does anyone have a link to the actual O’Keefe Multiple EELV Lunar Architecture proposal?
I don’t think there was ever a real architecture proposal published, just a bunch of ideas floating around. The “O’Keefe Architecture” is like a Rorschach test for space fanboys; they saw in it what they wanted to see.
Nemo, you may be partially right in that O’Keefe’s “architecture” does not seem to have had much formal study. However, the basic proposal of designing a light CEV that can be launched on any medium-class launch vehicle was valid and probably achievable. It directly addressed the key lessons recently learned (and already forgotton) by aiming for maximum flexibility at lowest political and financial cost, both short term and medium term. It provided maximum opportunity for commercial input. It would have provided very limited capability, but by keeping costs low and flexibility high, it would have created increased political potential for growth and adaptation to new destinations, albeit at probably greater risk.
Dr. Griffin’s adaptation of that plan retained some of its advantages, but by requiring new launch vehicles, it dramatically increased both financial and political costs while reducing flexibility and potential for commercial input. The new advantages were greater capability sooner and possibly room for a faster ramp-up to Mars, but at the price of a later start of actual missions and greater political risk. We are paying the latter price now.
— Donald
The US Space News site says they just decided to add $800M to the CLV. Wow. $800M in just marginal cost for developing a LV based on a proven LV.
IDEA — What about adding $800M to COTS, and picking *several* more COTS winners? We would then have something really exciting. We would probably have at least 5 winners. (As it is, the current $500M is likely to get two COTS winners. Whatever happens, some high-potential ideas almost certainly will not be funded.)
The result — a huge outbreak of entrepreneurial space development.
If Griffin was really serious about COTS, and if he could see the writing on the wall about the VSE, he would see that an extra $800M would buy a LOT more in COTS than throwing it towards the giant sucking sound.
– Nemo2
The “O’Keefe Architecture” was two rounds of proposal submissions by industry back in 2004. There were actually a number of participants, such as Andrews, Boeing, Draper, Lockmart, Northrup Grumman, Orbital, Raytheon, SAIC, Schafer, SpaceHab and tSpace. This is usually known as CE&R, Concept Exploration and Refinement. The reports can be found here at NASA
The studies used a variety of architectures, some with L-1, some without. Some used modified STS architectures, some used EELVs. Nemo’s off-base on this one. There was actually a lot of really, really good input provided to NASA by industry.
Nemo, you may be partially right in that O’Keefe’s “architecture” does not seem to have had much formal study.
There was no “O’Keefe architecture.” What there were was a number of architecture studies by various contractors, all of which NASA essentially ignored to come up with ESAS.
Someone named “cIclops” whines: “Why give such credence to rumor and speculation from NASA Watch and NasaSpaceFlight? The former specializes in nit picking and bashing NASA, the second in leaking internal documents, and both make money in the process. Building an analysis on such weak foundations seems a waste of good sand.”
Gosh, wake the kids – and by all means alert CNN – they featured me – live – twice today on CNN International (my 20th or 40th appearance? on CNN). And while you are at it, National Review should be warned of the clear and present threat that Rand Simberg and his subversive comments represent ….
Get a grip “cIclops”
Cowing blathered: “Gosh, wake the kids – and by all means alert CNN – they featured me – live – twice today on CNN International (my 20th or 40th appearance? on CNN). And while you are at it, National Review should be warned of the clear and present threat that Rand Simberg and his subversive comments represent ….
Get a grip cIclops”
CNN is that still being broadcast? Anti NASA drivel must have fitted in perfectly with their anti US anti Bush spin.
Is that tight enough Cowing?
My dear cIclops, you clearly did not see either of my interviews – they were hardly anti-NASA. Oh well. I can see that you’re one of those arm wavers for whom facts get in the way of a good rant.
The studies used a variety of architectures, some with L-1, some without. Some used modified STS architectures, some used EELVs. Nemo’s off-base on this one. There was actually a lot of really, really good input provided to NASA by industry.
I don’t think I’m off-base here. All that input was exterior to NASA and none of the specifics were officially endorsed by anyone at NASA who really mattered (i.e. Steidle level or above) prior to O’Keefe’s departure, to my knowledge.
So Rand is right – there was no “O’Keefe architecture”. A proposal to use small capsules adaptable to multiple EELV types was doubtlessly one of the industry proposals, and Donald is certainly free to advocate such an architecture, but calling it the “O’Keefe architecture” is giving O’Keefe way too much credit, besides giving a misleading picture of how far along NASA’s architecture process was at the time O’Keefe left.
It is worth reminding people that practically as soon as Griffin walked in the door at NASA HQ, he terminated all of O’Keefe’s roadmapping committees because they were taking too long and hadn’t produced any products, and replaced them with his own architecture study.
The original article on NSF has been pulled and a retraction issued in its place.
Ah, so someone at NASA has an agenda and released apparently doctored slides to NASASpaceFlight, which they then decided to convey to the public (you know, the folks that are paying for all of this). It happens, and that’s probably why none of the major news sources really picked up on it – it was likely still in the vetting process, which probably put pressure on NASA to figure out what happened.
So which group was the insider trying to discredit?
Nemo, “O’Keefe Architecture” was your nomenclature, as in “The “O’Keefe Architecture” is like a Rorschach test for space fanboys; they saw in it what they wanted to see.” (If that wasn’t you, that just shows the dangers of pseudonyms)
NASA’s the one that commissioned the CE&R studies. There were a total of twenty produced over the two rounds, at not insignificant cost. As I said, there was a lot of really good information packed in those reports… and some not so good information. (You should take the time to look through them) But at least the taxpayers could see what was going on. We don’t have as much of that now, and that’s why you see folks leaping on any scrap that falls loose from NASA’s grip.
This is not a race. I repeat, this is not a race. We have had the chance to really look things over and lay out a good national strategy that involved more than NASA to start pushing outward. We were going through that process (and were we continuing it we’d probably have some folks knocking together some hardware by now). When O’Keefe left we were presented with a space insider and a pre-packaged space program that was essentially done when the CE&R process was being undertaken. Why then did ATK not compete?
Nemo, “O’Keefe Architecture” was your nomenclature, as in “The “O’Keefe Architecture” is like a Rorschach test for space fanboys; they saw in it what they wanted to see.” (If that wasn’t you, that just shows the dangers of pseudonyms)
No, it wasn’t me, and the reason has nothing to do with pseudonyms (although there are several “Nemos” around here). It has everything to do with you failing to trace the thread back to its origin. My first post in the thread was in response to this question by Alex:
Does anyone have a link to the actual O’Keefe Multiple EELV Lunar Architecture proposal?
who in turn was replying to this post by Donald Robertson:
On to the subject at hand, maybe it’s time to go back to Mr. O’Keefe’s original “vision” of a minimum lunar infrastructure launched with small spacecraft on top of EELVs.
OK, back to your post:
NASA’s the one that commissioned the CE&R studies. There were a total of twenty produced over the two rounds, at not insignificant cost.
So what? NASA commissions outside studies all the time, and doesn’t always follow their recommendations. Even if O’Keefe intended to follow their recommendations, the fact remains that Griffin terminated O’Keefe’s Roadmap Committees before they could arrive at an architecture, much less publish anything.