You beat me to the punch. Its obvious why they’re avoiding this one. If on-orbit propellant transfer became available pre-Ares-I/V, it would completely undermine their argument for existence. HLVs mostly ship up fancy containers of propellants with some goofy looking thruster thingoes on the back. If you no longer need to ship those containers with the propellants already pre-packed, the need for really big rockets goes down substantially.

That’s why Griffin while he’ll say good things about propellant transfer really wants the technology to appear after Ares I and V are “sunk costs”, because then they’ll have Congressional constituencies tied to them and will be harder to cancel…

~Jon

I agree with you, that most of ISS problems are Shuttle related. And for the record I am a advocate of on-orbit construction.

But NASA’s focus on heavy-lift indicates they have decided on avoiding on-orbit construction at all cost – an illiogical over reaction by NASA in my mind. And it will likely lead to a lost of expertise in the area of on-robit assmebly just as NASA’s abandonment of the moon led to a lost of expertise in lunar surface operations. Expertise that must now be relearned.

But, the problems have been driven by the Shuttle. The Space Station construction has gone well. (No one is dead yet, and in an endeavor like building the Space Station, that’s an amazing statement.) This is a classic example of drawing the wrong conclusion, partially because of unrealistic expectations.

Best of all it looks like Deimos has water on it.

If so, that is fantastic news! I’ll read the paper tomorrow.

I’m not ready to write off Mars Direct as a possible strategy, but if I thought I could sell it, I’d make the Martian moons at least an equal priority than the moon.

— Donald

If you add nuclear-ion or solar-ion to the mix you could well have a very viable Mars system without Ares. But you would also need orbital assembly which NASA seems to be avoiding because of their experience with ISS.

I also agree that the Moons of Mars are its natural space stations and should be the first goal of any Mars exploration program, and then use landers from there. Best of all it looks like Deimos has water on it. This means ISRU for life support and agriculture. And fuel for landers!

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_deimos_water_company.shtml

Really ISRU looks a far better as a strategy for the Mars Moons then for Mars itself if water is found on them as some believe is possible. Just put a RTG on it and start mining water. Find a cave, or make one perhaps using an impactor like with Deep Impact, then build your habitat safe from solar storms. Use the water for food, life support, fuel. And then just make dashes down to the surface as needed.

Much better then Mars direct. And the vaccum living technolgies and water mining ones developed from your lunar polar base would fit right in your Deimos one.

Actually if NASA is really serious about going to Mars we really need to get some high quality maps and resource surveys of both moons. I wonder if MRO would be up tp the job once its prime mission is over?

While measuring it is far beyond my competence, an aerobraked mission to the Martian moons (and maybe even staged to the surface over multiple live-off-the-land flights) need not require as much heavy lift. Which begs the question: does a Mars mission really require something like Ares-V?

Such an architecture gets you early deep space experience, two “asteroids,” and Mars — probably for much less money, and more “sustainable” — than the current plan, albeit at probably far greater risk. . . .

— Donald

I am continually impressed by the ideas being generated outside NASA for fixing the lunar return effort. I hope they get a fair hearing someday.

If only ESAS had actually examined such alternatives and requirements sensitivities in the first place…

One observation I have is perhaps there also needs to be a discussion on why a 4 person crew to the lunar surface?

Apollo was 3 person because it was consider you needed two on the surface for safety and one on the CSM in case of emergency, either with the CSM or if it was necessary to go into a lower orbit to dock with a LM that failed to achieve the proper docking orbit. The entire Apollo/Saturn system was then designed to support the need to have two on the surface while 1 is in orbit architecture.

Similarly it appears that the 4 crew for 6 months is driving the needs of the ESAS. Perhaps we need to drag out that basic requirement and look at it in more detail.

But modern communications and electronics eliminates the need for a crewman on the orbital element, and the 6 month duration makes it impractical. So we only need to address the surface crew needs.

A 4 person crew for the base makes sense from the safety viewpoint. Two members to go on extended explorations, two to stay at the base to maintain it and be available if the two on expedition need support.

And the 6 month duration is probably driven by the ability to launch the Ares V vehicle.

But lets consider another option. Instead of sending 4 new crew every six months for a six month stay (4-6-6 rotation), why not 2 new crew every three months for a six month stay (2-3-6 rotation)? This might have several advantages.

1) a 2-3-6 rotation allows a major downsizing of the CEV and Lunar Lander from 4 crew to 2 crew. A huge saving in weight, perhaps enough for both elements to be easily launched by EELV’s.

2) Smaller spacecraft are easier to design and cheaper to build. And you would be building more of them, 4 a year versus 2, which creates additional economies.

3) The smaller vehicles could also be developed much quicker, especially since no new launch vehicles would be needed. This would both close the spaceflight gap and allow the VSE to move forward in the existing budget environment.

4) A 2-3-6 rotation allows easier transfer of lunar surface experience, the new crew serving three months with a “veteran” crew that has already learned the ropes. This will have major safety benefits.

5) The 2-3-6 rotation also reduces the problems of long term crew compatibility. It a lot easier to put up with the same faces for 3 months then for 6.

6) The 2-3-6 rotation also means there will always be at least 2 CEV and 2 Lunar Landers available to the base. This would allow emergency medical evac without requiring the base to be abandoned. Again safety benefits.

7) The cost of launching 8 EELVs a year is also likely to be much less then launching 2 Ares I and two Ares V. Especially since most of the STS infrastructure could now be abandoned. And would create economies of scale for the EELV infrastructure for other missions. This would create a high level of sustainability.

8) The smaller size of the 2 crew vehicles would also allow them to be easily transition to new less expensive launch vehicles as they become available. You wouldn’t be locked into an expensive STS based infrastructure for as long as the Moon base exists.

However there would be some downsides.

1) The STS infrastructure, and associated political support, would go away.

2) The Russians and Chinese would have bigger crew spacecraft then we have.

3) The infrastructure would have no value for a Mars mission which does require a large CEV and Ares V for heavy lift.

Still, is the VSE is to be salvaged in the current environment it might be worth a look at the assumptions behind a 4-6-6 rotation and see if a 2-3-6 rotation makes more sense.

“This is yet another reason why this decision will not be revisited in the near future.”

And as such, six ISS crew is not a good reason not to revisit Orion sizing now, before it really is too late.

My 2 cents… FWIW.