House Science Committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert told the AP Tuesday that he believes that NASA will be able to speed up development of Orion and thus reduce the gap in US government manned spaceflight capability when the shuttle is retired in 2010. Boehlert said he believed Michael Griffin will make a “determined effort” to speed up Orion, which is currently scheduled to entered no later than 2014.
But is it too late? That’s the suggestion of Flight International, which reports in its current issue that Orion has already run into problems that will prevent NASA from accelerating its development schedule. The evidence for that is a little thin: a systems requirements review has been pushed back from the fourth quarter of this year to the first quarter of 2007, and the Ares 1 rocket that will launch Orion will not be ready to perform an orbital (unmanned) test flight of the spacecraft until 2012. However, reporter Rob Coppinger argues in a blog entry, development delays have affected earlier manned spacecraft programs, so there’s no reason to think Orion will be immune to them.
From what I’ve been hearing, even the FY14 schedule is optimistic. Not much about this project is really adding up.
It is a bad plan from a sustainment standpoint. The Apollo style of space exploration is not an effective way to explore.
We need to stop trying to go away from a shuttle like system and update improve upon the shuttle system.
I think that developping a LEO to Lunar Orbit transfer vehicle is important. But the stage to orbit needs to be a largely reusable vehicle – delivering supplies to Alpha (ISS) and then transfering them there to the lunar transfer vehicle.
It seems like NASA keeps shelfing a previous program to use money to support another program, when it could use the previous program to support the future program.
But they have been told this for decades!
D3x: We need to stop trying to go away from a shuttle like system and update improve upon the shuttle system.
But this is what Rocketplane Kistler with it’s totally reusable COTS entry, and to a lesser extent SpaceX’s partially reusable system, are for. NASA should no longer need to develop operational vehicles, only advanced technology.
The thing that makes this possible is the Space Station market. To make your reusable space tug a reality, we first need to have a lunar base (or at least regular expeditions) to give it a reason for existance. It is past time to stop trying to put the cart (advanced transportation) before the horse (an addressable market). While I have many problems with its implementation, NASA’s overall strategy is the only one likely to succeed, given the limited budgets and political support that are likely to be available. (I’ve argued this before, SF Model)
Meanwhile, off topic, it looks like the first major non-US political fallout of the Chinese human spaceflights is beginning to arrive. I think this one, at least, is entirely good news.
Space The Next Frontier For Human Being Says ISRO Chairman.
— Donald
Is Orion the tall poll, or is the program being held hostage by NASA’s unwillingness to let go of the CLV albatross??
The stick does not work, everyone knows it, but Horowitz refuses to let it go.
Maybe the next Administration can use the current CEV design in an upgraded EELV. That way, not all the work so far is wasted.
— Donald
> NASA should no longer need to develop operational vehicles,
> only advanced technology.
We don’t need “advanced technology” to go to the Moon. What advanced technology do you think VSE is developing?
> NASA’s overall strategy is the only one likely to succeed, given the
> limited budgets and political support that are likely to be available.
> (I’ve argued this before, SF Model)
Proclaiming that your strategy as “the only one likely to succeed” isn’t an argument. It’s a slogan.
You haven’t given a single logical argument why a more cost-effective strategy cannot succeed. Or why we the current “cost be damned” strategy will succeed.
All you do is tell us that Apollo on Steroids will succeed because San Francisco succeeded. You overlook a thousand differences between Apollo and San Francisco. Apollo didn’t lead to San Fransisco on the Moon, as your “SF mode” would predict. Why should we believe Orion will lead to San Francisco on Steroids?
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.
> Maybe the next Administration can use the current CEV design in
> an upgraded EELV. That way, not all the work so far is wasted.
No, it will still be wasted — and they’ll have to waste more billions to develop that “upgraded” EELV.
How many billions of dollars should the taxpayers have to spend, just because you don’t believe it’s PC to build a capsule that can fit on a current ELV? Or to buy commercial space transportation?
> No, it will still be wasted — and they’ll
> have to waste more billions to develop
> that “upgraded” EELV.
I don’t know what your basis for this comment is. It won’t cost “billions” to develop an upgraded EELV. Look at LM’s website. They seem to have done a lot of work on evolving Atlas, including Human Rating. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=17607&rsbci=14917&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400
The choice is simple. Who would you rather have designing a LV that gets us moving forward on our common goal of space exploration? The folks at LM or Boeing who have recent LV experience, or NASA, who rely on 40 year old Saturn experience? NASA’s inability to manage a program to completion is abysmal. Come on…
We can move forward with existing systems, then spend precious NASA funding on developing technologies that can enable breakthroughs in new transportation technologies.
Its the same tired EELV vs Ares debate.
Ares I’s real purpose is to set a pick as in basketball with EELV as the target. If EELV were chosen for CLV, COTS would be stillborn, suffocated in its crib. Why? Because of space politics with the K Street gurus telling Congress that buying smaller EELVs (Delta and Atlas) for ISS work to help hold down prices on EELVs for CLV & CEV.
An all EELV VSE would mean NO federal money for Kistler & Space X (COTS).
Kistler and SpaceX need to take the ball to the basket (lower launch costs) and Ares I (Stick/Shaft) is being built to make sure EELV doesn’t steal the ball and go the other way (more expensive space access). Once Kistler and SpaceX actually fly no one will advocate using Ares I for routine LEO access.
Besides, Griffin craves those RSRM casings for Ares V.
The rumors that “the Stick does not work” appear to be unfounded.
> I don’t know what your basis for this comment is. It won’t cost “billions” to develop an upgraded EELV.
> Look at LM’s website. They seem to have done a lot of work on evolving Atlas, including Human Rating.
The basis is very simple. To launch “Orion” capsules, as Donald suggests, would requite more than man-rating Atlas. Orion is much too heavy for that. Once again, NASA has deliberately designed a payload so that it can only fly on Shuttle hardware.
> We can move forward with existing systems, then spend precious NASA funding on
> developing technologies that can enable breakthroughs in new transportation technologies.
No existing launch system can launch Orion. If NASA builds the uber-capsule, they have to build Shuttle-derived or EELV-derived. Neither is an existing rocket, and neither would be cheap.
Edward is correct, here:
No existing launch system can launch Orion. If NASA builds the uber-capsule, they have to build Shuttle-derived or EELV-derived. Neither is an existing rocket, and neither would be cheap.
My intuition also agrees that Orion’s large mass was chosen very much on purposes.
Where we may differ is my belief that this situation creates a niche where Kistler and Musk can thrive without head-to-head competition with a Boeing or Lockheed product subsidized by CLV/CEV contracts. If a smaller CEV/Orion were launched on Delta IVH then using single barrel Deltas for ISS re-supply would make perfect sense and leave no breathing room for COTS.
> If EELV were chosen for CLV, COTS would be stillborn, suffocated in its crib. Because of
> space politics with the K Street gurus telling Congress that buying smaller EELVs (Delta and
> Atlas) for ISS work to help hold down prices on EELVs for CLV & CEV.
They’re doing that anyway, with Shuttle-derived.
That isn’t a reason, Bill. It’s a rationalization.
> An all EELV VSE would mean NO federal money for Kistler & Space X (COTS).
SHOW YOUR MATH, Bill. Shuttle fans CLAIM Shuttle-derived will be cheaper, but you never present any NUMBERS to support your claims.
Using current rockets and a reasonable-size capsule, instead of new heavy lifters and an uber-capsule, would save billions. NASA would have *mote* money for COTS, not less.
> Kistler and SpaceX need to take the ball to the basket (lower launch costs) and Ares I (Stick/Shaft) is
> being built to make sure EELV doesn’t steal the ball and go the other way (more expensive space access).
No, Bill, that is not why Ares I is being built. You’re making stuff up. Please stop it.
> Once Kistler and SpaceX actually fly no one will advocate using Ares I for routine LEO access.
Again, you’re making stuff up. NASA’s plan is to shut down ISS (in 2016). They are building Ares I and Ares V to provide *all* of their “routine LEO access” after that date. Not COTS.
You’re entitled to your own opinions, Bill, not your own facts.
> Besides, Griffin craves those RSRM casings for Ares V.
Is that the best justification you can come up with? Griffin craves it?
Griffin is supposed to be a public servant, Bill. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” The taxpayers have no obligation to spend unnecessary billions just because Mike Griffin craves it.
>If NASA builds the uber-capsule, they have to build Shuttle-derived or EELV-derived. Neither is an existing rocket, and neither would be cheap.
Who do you think could design and field a LV System at a lower cost and an accelerated schedule (vs the Stick)? NASA or an EELV contractor? My money would be on private industry. Why not have a fair and open competition?
>The rumors that “the Stick does not work” appear to be unfounded.
Don’t drink the NASA Kool-aid. NASA put out a Upper Stage Design Definitions Document on 5 July that shows that Upper Stage weight >6Klb OVER their January Upper Stage baseline!
> If a smaller CEV/Orion were launched on Delta IVH then using single barrel Deltas for ISS re-supply would make perfect sense
In Bizarro World, maybe.
That was one of the options proposed and rejected in the COTS competition. Even NASA doesn’t agree with you, Bill.
>>The rumors that “the Stick does not work” appear to be unfounded.
Don’t drink the NASA Kool-aid. NASA put out a Upper Stage Design Definitions Document on 5 July that shows that Upper Stage weight >6Klb OVER their January Upper Stage baseline!
From the above link:
and
If this is wrong, a whole lot of people will be fired.
= = =
As for Edward’s point, using an EELV CLV for CEV would create future opportunities for K Street operatives to encourage Congress to overrule NASA on COTS and go with an all-EELV space program, incluidng ISS re-supply.
Using the Shaft for ISS access would be too stupid even for Congress to approve, provided Kistler and SpaceX actually deliver. If they fail to deliver (Jon Goff’s scenario) it will all remain too expensive, anyway.
EELV is simply far too expensive, long term, and therefore a secure market niche for Kistler and SpaceX needs to be created for ISS logistics to allow those systems to be deployed.
>> If NASA builds the uber-capsule, they have to build Shuttle-derived or
>> EELV-derived. Neither is an existing rocket, and neither would be cheap.
> Who do you think could design and field a LV System at a lower cost and
> an accelerated schedule (vs the Stick)? NASA or an EELV contractor?
Neither one. There isn’t one group of “EELV contractors” and another group of NASA contractors. They’re the same companies.
> My money would be on private industry. Why not have a fair and open competition?
If you want a fair and open competition, don’t dictate every detail of the architecture then ask “private industry” (government contractors) to build it.
Do what Pete Worden suggested. Offer a one-billion dollar prize to the first American company to land a human on the Moon.
___
> Using the Shaft for ISS access would be too stupid even for Congress to approve,
It’s no more or less stupid than using the Shaft for VSE, and you want to do that.
> EELV is simply far too expensive, long term,
Shuttle-derived will be just as expensive. Yet, you want to build a giant capsule that will lock NASA into using Shuttle-derived for (in Griffin’s words) the next 40 years.
You say you believe small RLVs will emerge in the next few decades. Yet, you want NASA to adopt a lunar architecture based on huge components that will be incompatible with such RLVs. So, even if private enterprise reduces the cost of space transportation by an order of magnitude, NASA will realize no cost savings at all.
What is the point of that? +
> therefore a secure market niche for Kistler and SpaceX needs to be
> created for ISS logistics to allow those systems to be deployed.
“Secure”??? At the COTS press conference, NASA made a point of saying there was no guarantee that either COTS winner would receive *any* business after the initial demonstration flights, no matter how successful those demonstrations might be. Even if there is, that business would be limited to no more than four flights a year and will go away when NASA’s involvement in ISS ends in 2016.
If a client brought a contract like that into your law office, Bill, would you tell him that was a “secure” market niche? Would your partners sign off on that statement?
Edward, the big NASA rocket (Ares V) delivers large items to the Moon and elsewhere in situations where the payload is not easily broken into pieces — giant Catepillar regolith movers, turn-key LOX plants, large diameter habitats, larger nuclear reactors etc. . . and Ares V also supports a Mars program.
NewSpace then delivers crew and smaller logistical items to LEO and the Moon. Anything small enough to fit in Kistler or SpaceX or a SSTO spaceplane (including fuel) flies that way. Big bulldozers? Robotic LOX plants? Build on Earth, fly on an Ares V giant LSAM.
I would hope Ares I is phased out of service very quickly to make room for much cheaper Earth-to-LEO options. But that money is not lost as Ares I development is also a downpayment on Ares V, as Danny Davis said in his interview.
If we are worried about Markets for technologies – NASA should stop worrying about going to the Moon and focus on long term human exposer to space research in LEO.
The Ares series is just as costly and out-dated techonolgoy wise as the shuttle.
The design architecture for the moon missions holds no great technological feats.
It would actually prove more economical and marketable to have a Ferry. A LEO to Lunar (Orbit or Ground) transfer vehicle is launched once compared to launching that same vehicle ~10 times (Apollo) to do the same thing in the current plan. If you come up with a vehicle capable of making the journey 20 times and launch it once from then on you are only launching the mass of the fuel (the largest mass overall), a container for that fuel for each mission, and the crew to ISS/Lunar Ferry.
But no we would rather go to the mooon basicly the same way we did 60 years before and send another 50 people there to do nothing.
A few reasons to build the ferry are:
1. Reduces cost overall (that mass gets launched 1 or 2 time from Earth)
2. Allows you to build a base on the Moon
3. Continues to use ISS and thus the investment made there (NASA is going to use ISS until it has the lunar program up and running and then quit – bad idea)
A few reasons to keep using/funding ISS
1. Provides a location in LEO to train crews for longer missions
2. Provides a facility at which to assemble spacecraft for longer missions
3. It is still going to be there in 2020 being used by the Russians as a tourist destination and for sale scientific lab.
NASA needs to re-evaulate and decide what its mission is – and the Moon is not it, but neither is sustained human space flight (unless it is for scientific reasons).
> Edward, the big NASA rocket (Ares V) delivers large items to the Moon
> and elsewhere
— giant Catepillar regolith movers, turn-key LOX plants, large
> diameter habitats, larger nuclear reactors etc.
Statements like that, Bill, are why I can’t take ESAS seriously.
Bigelow Aerospace is working on large diameter habitats that deflate and fold up for launch on existing rockets. They don’t require an Ares V to launch them.
A big Caterpillar earth mover weighs more than your beloved LSAM, Bill. What are you going to do, develop an Ares X that’s 10 times the size of Ares V, just to launch it? And a lander 50 times the size of LSAM to land it?
If you ever saw a large nuclear reactor being constructed on Earth, you would see that they are built onsite. They don’t ship a completed powerplant in one really huge airplane.
Yet, Moonies and Marsies ignore economics and just make ideological statements about how it’s “impossible” to assembly anything in space, so everything must be prefabricated and shipped on one really huge rocket.
Why? Just to “minimize the launch rate” (guaranteeing that launch costs will never go down)?
To “reduce the number of people needed” on the Moon?
If reducing the number of people on the Moon is your goal, why send anyone at all?
> I would hope Ares I is phased out of service very quickly to make room
> for much cheaper Earth-to-LEO options.
Are you hoping to sell the Brooklyn Bridge, too?
Again, CEV will be too large for any much cheaper Earth-to-LEO transportation option. NASA will never be able to launch its 27-ton capsule on an RLV with a one-, five-, or even ten-ton payload.
And if you’re hoping for someone to build a huge Shuttle II RLV to launch your 27-ton capsule and LSAM lander, that RLV will have a trivial flight rate and be about as economical as the Shuttle.
What part of that do you not understand?
> There isn’t one group of “EELV contractors” and another group of NASA contractors. They’re the same companies.
Ed, I’m puzzled by your comment. EELV is the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle. Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, Boeing built the Delta IV. They are the EELV Contractors. The EELV Program had nothing to do with NASA.
So, LM and Boeing have had recent experience in developing LVs. NASA has had none, and instead of involving LM or Boeing, they are spending their time digging up retired Saturn Engineers and visting space museums to cannibalize parts from old Satun LVs in order to rebuild their LV expertise.
So who would you rather have the responsibility for developing a LV for VSE that gets it done before we’re all dead?
If you wanted to buy a car, would you go to the bank and have them build one for you, or would you go to a Toyota dealership?
I’d go for the Toyota cause it serves my near term needs, and I’d continue saving my money for that flying car…..
“If you ever saw a large nuclear reactor being constructed on Earth, you would see that they are built onsite. They don’t ship a completed powerplant in one really huge airplane.”
Edward,
Yet again you speak of that which you do not know. Not all large reactors (large being a relative term) are built on-site. The Navy Rx Program ships entire reactors around all the time. And no I don’t mean once they are installed in the sub/carrier. They are built at point A and shipped overland to point B (i.e. shipyard).
You also miss the point between NASA building the ARES and the commercial EELV contractors. While ultimately the same company might build both sets of hardware, ARES will be saddled with NASA management and that it where the difference shows up. Industry, by far and away, has better managment, cost accounting, etc. If NASA had to operate as a business like private industry, they would have long since been run out of town for suspect/illegal cost accounting and reporting; and poor return on investment to their shareholders. I would love to see the business case for the VSE. I am sure that would be worth a good belly laugh.
Bill White: Why should anyone listen to your ravings, if you can’t quantify any of your claims?
///////////////////////////////////////////////
… visting space museums to cannibalize parts from old Satun LVs in order to rebuild their LV expertise.
Can you cite any actual evidence for that, or is it only your space-enthusiast romanticism at work?
I agree, Apollo 2.0 engineers might benefit from museum field trips. But are they actually doing that? It sounds like something NASA would be em-bare-assed about doing overtly, on company time.
… Not that actually resurrecting Apollo is a bad idea.
If the goal is to return to the Moon quicker and cheaper, why not take an Apollo Command Module, Service Module, and LEM set out of the Smithsonian Museum, rebuild ‘em with modern avionics, then launch capsule and crew with a Shuttle and SM and LEM on an EELV for rendezvous in low Earth orbit?
How’s that for back-to-the-future space romanticism?
David,
Here is Bill’s evidence. Now apologize. Or do we just discount your ravings as well?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-08-14-nasa-apollo_x.htm?csp=34
Absolutely no tooling and very little of the documentation remains from the original J-2 program. It’s a completely new engine.
They’re only keeping the J-2 name to sell the fallacy that the development is going quick and low cost. Safe Simple Soon, and all that.
If the goal is to return to the Moon quicker and cheaper, why not take an Apollo Command Module, Service Module, and LEM set out of the Smithsonian Museum, rebuild ‘em with modern avionics, then launch capsule and crew with a Shuttle and SM and LEM on an EELV for rendezvous in low Earth orbit?
I thought that was what NASA were doing.
What I don’t understand the reason for the massive weight and volume growth. Surely four passengers don’t need a 15 cubic metre command module if they’re only going to be in the bloody thing for a day and a half. What does NASA think this capsule is, the Burj al Arab?
What does the J-2X have to do with an EELV versus Ares debate? What engine would go on the LEO-to-Luna stage of a CEV lofted by Atlas V or Delta IV?
EELV would need a J-2X equivalent as much as Ares needs one.
= = =
Edward [may] or [may not] be correct that the intention behind Ares I was not to make room for COTS. However the practical effect of Ares I (whether intentional or not) creates a niche for Kistler and SpaceX. Ares I sets a pick that opens up opportunity for both COTS and Ares V.
An EELV CLV would threaten both COTS and Ares V.
And yes, there are payloads for Ares V that are not easily broken down into tiny bits even if there are many payloads that can be broken down into tiny bits.
NASA should build what the private sector cannot, and that is heavy lift. Once the private sector (Musk & Kistler for example) prove they have cheap light lift accomplished or if Falcon 9 can carry a CEV class vessel, cancel Ares I (absolutely!) and use those SRB casings for Ares V rather than Ares I.
EELV? Too expensive to be sustainable. Besides, once Kistler and Falcon fly even DoD won’t be buying EELV anymore. So, why should NASA?
Actually it’s not completely true about the J-2 having no tooling or documentation. Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne used J-2 derived technology to develop the engine for the X-33. I would think that Rocketdyne still has substantial design data available for them development the new J-2X, which is indeed a new engine. I think the previous relationship was the main reason for NASA using the J-2.
One of the main reasons they didn’t use SSME was its not built for mid-air starts while J-2 was built as a mid-air start engine. I don’t know the difficulties in changing an engine from ground base ignition to mid-air ignition but this could add significant time to development over the J-2.
> However the practical effect of Ares I (whether intentional or not)
> creates a niche for Kistler and SpaceX.
You’re making stuff up again, Bill.
Ares I did not “create” a niche for SpaceX. It was Elon Musk who met with Sean O’Keefe and told him NASA should retire the Shuttle and buy capsules, so it could go to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. That was long before Griffin and his friends at the Planetary Society invented invented Ares.
No matter how you spin the facts, Bill, Ares takes away market niches could compete in — and, by law, *should* compete in.
The Launch Service Purchase Act applies to all of NASA’s space transportation requirements. Not just one or two “niches” where you think private industry should be “allowed” to compete.
You want to limit private enterprise to one tiny “niche” (less than 1% of the NASA budget) and tell us it’s a great thing. Great thing for the Empire, Yoda thinks, not for the rebellion.
It’s ironic that you are a lawyer, but you want NASA to violate the law.
Then again, maybe it isn’t.
> An EELV CLV would threaten both COTS and Ares V.
Good. Ares V should be threatened. There’s no reason why we should waste hundreds of billions of dollars just to please a few Apollo worshippers.
> And yes, there are payloads for Ares V that are not easily broken down
> into tiny bits even if there are many payloads that can be broken down
> into tiny bits.
Those who have done cost calculations disagree with you. The late Dr. Max Hunter pointed out that the largest payload which cannot be broken down for shipment is an adult human being.
There was even a “Bill White” on Transterrestrial.com who conceded Soyuz would be superior to Orion and Ares for lunar missions. A relative of yours, perhaps? (I’m sure you’ve disowned him by now.)
It’s sad that NASA and its fans don’t even *want* America to do anything new. Any new idea, whether it’s in-space assembly, orbital refueing, or low-cost launch, is rejected. Just so you can do a sad rerun of the 1960’s, with the promise that “it will turn out different this time.”
Edward, I stand firm on my admiration for Soyuz.
Boeing should buy the rights to manufacture R-7s (Soyuz & Progress) and they would then blow the doors off Musk and Kistler on price and reliability. But then no one would buy EELVs at substantially higher prices making it a lousy financial decision for Boeing even if it advanced our goals in space immensely.
= = =
Ares I does not compete with SpaceX or Kistler. Neither are remotely close to lifting humans.
And I would support more money for COTS so more money can be channeled to SpaceX and Kistler.
> I stand firm on my admiration for Soyuz.
Yet, you want to waste billions of dollars building Orion and Ares instead.
> Ares I does not compete with SpaceX or Kistler. Neither are remotely close to lifting humans.
Just because you wish for something doesn’t make it true, Bill.
> I would support more money for COTS so more money can be channeled to SpaceX and Kistler.
So, you “would” support more money for COTS. Whatever that means. Yet, you don’t support more money for COTS, you want to flush it down the crapper on Orion and Ares.
Boeing should buy the rights to manufacture R-7s (Soyuz & Progress) and they would then blow the doors off Musk and Kistler on price and reliability.
We’ll know soon about that price and reliability when Arianespace starts launching them from Kourou in 2008.
But Boeing isn’t the price competitor with Musk and Kistler.
Russian launches of Soyuz & Progress are the price competition.