I would counter that the ultimate object ‘in space’ is NOT what you suggest. Instead, what you have laid out is the ultimate object of a viable space operations infrastructure/capability, and I agree that properly defined lunar return is the best means of starting the establishment of same.

But suggesting that this is ‘the ultimate object’ of space activities pre-supposes that those space activities have been justified already…and for many people they have not, and this, I feel, is a serious shortcoming of many efforts of space advocacy. Essentially, the missionaries already believe in the gospel and feel no need to explain it or justify its value or legitimacy.

Bringing the solar system into our economic sphere of influence, exploring the unknown to make life better on Earth, inspiring us all with challenge and adventure…these are the “ultimate objectives” spoken to by the Vision.

Establishing a means of achieving these goals (or any portion thereof) should never be mistaken for the ultimate goals themselves. This was ‘ultimately’ the fate that befell shuttle and the entire human spaceflight effort for nearly 20 years.

I’m sure you would agree we’d best not fall into that trap again—assuming we haven’t already, that is…

But I have not heard one (yet).

You heard one — you simply chose to ignore it. I’ll repeat it again:

The ultimate object in space is to go anywhere, at any time, with
whatever capabilities needed to do any task or objective. This ability
is still far away; current spaceflight opportunities are mass and
energy limited and will always be so if everything needed in space
must be lifted from the deep gravity well of Earth’s surface. To
create greater capability, the resources of space must be harnessed to
build, extend and operate transportation systems in space. On the Moon, we will learn the skills and acquire the technologies needed to extract materials and energy from space to create new spacefaring capabilities. The
initial goal is to create a permanent infrastructure that can
routinely access the entire volume of cislunar space (where all
current space assets reside) with machines and people. As capabilities
grow with time, such a system would be extended to interplanetary space.

NASA was given this assignment five years ago as the Vision for Space Exploration and it was clearly and articulately expressed as a major space policy declaration. Instead of implementing this task, they chose to interpret it as a mandate for an Apollo program to Mars. There was never money in anybody’s budget for that job nor was it the intention of the VSE.

John Galt is a fantasy character from a work of fiction. That’s how disconnected from reality the r_e_t_a_r_d_s of America really are.

‘NASA: Assessments of Selected Large-Scale Projects’
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09306sp.pdf

Page 19 of the report has an estimate of the total life-cycle cost of the Ares 1 as $17-20 Billion.

Page 45 of the report has an estimate of the total life-cycle cost of the Orion as $20-29 Billion.”

Thanks, Mr. Fansome.

Wow… just wow…

Space News (print, March 9, 2009, “Scolese: NASA Is Addressing Cost, Schedule Overruns”) includes the following quote:

“It has been particularly difficult for NASA officials to estimate the cost of manned flight missions, Scolese told the committee, because so few projects have been undertaken and because these programs extend over decades. “We don’t have strong historical data,” he said.”

“As a result, NASA was unable to provide GAO with specific cost estimates for the Ares 1 rocket and Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle. Instead, space agency officials told GAO the entire Ares program is expected to cost between $17 billion and $20 billion while Orion is expected to cost between $20 billion and $29 billion, according to the report.”

Do I understand this Space News quote correctly? Is the GAO getting its Ares 1/Orion cost estimates from NASA? If so, what’s the process for NASA coming up with those numbers? Is NASA an unbiased source? Could the actual expected numbers, if produced by an independent but informed source, be even higher than $37-49B??? Is NASA just guessing, as the quote seems to suggest?

I just can’t get over the $37-49B for a capability (ISS crew transport) whose major use seems to be to compete with U.S. commercial transportation services.

Al: “Now, in order to think about total “Constellation program costs”, we need to add in” <>

Will Ares/Orion be lunar capable by the time the $37-49B(!) are spent, or just ISS-capable? If only ISS capable, there’s another little line item to add to the list …

Al: “and have even challenged Mr. Wingo and Paul Spudis”

Both of them are strong advocates for going back to the Moon, but my understanding of their preferred approaches to doing that is that they’re quite different from Constellation. It’s probably fairly difficult for them to argue for an approach that they’re partly for (eg: the destination) but partly against (eg: Ares, lack of reusability, lack of ISRU, lack of commercial participation, etc). … but I guess I should let them speak for themselves, which I’m sure they’ll do if they want to.

That’s not Elifritz.

Mr. Elifritz recently located a very large and very recent impact crater and is busy working on the scientific ramifications of that discovery. That’s Clear Lake or Habitablezone or some other new rabid space enthusiast. Mr. Elifritz has completely lost interest in arguing failed launch vehicle architectures with failed space policy wonks and hacks, and encourages fresh and new space advocate faces to take up the now even more pressing battle against Ares.

MAJOR TOM SAID: “Not that I doubt the number, but is there a source for it? I can only get up to $25-30B using the President’s five-year budget, extrapolated to 2015-16.”

Major Tom,

The recent March 2009 GAO report has new numbers:

“NASA: Assessments of Selected Large-Scale Projects”
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09306sp.pdf

Page 19 of the report has an estimate of the total life-cycle cost of the Ares 1 as $17-20 Billion.

Page 45 of the report has an estimate of the total life-cycle cost of the Orion as $20-29 Billion.

Providing a total estimated cost of $37-49 Billion just for these two pieces of hardware.

Now, in order to think about total “Constellation program costs”, we need to add in:

* Ares V
* Altair (lunar lander)
* Lunar Rover
* Power/energy systems
* Lunar Habitat module(s)
* Environmental Control/Life Support Module(s)
* Operations (Considering ISS and Shuttle historical Ops costs, any estimates here?)
* Plus more for any utilization or new technology development that people want to do.

Constellation will cost much more than $100B.

So, why are we going back to the Moon (as opposed to some other destination beyond LEO)?

I have brought up this issue here before, and have even challenged Mr. Wingo and Paul Spudis, who are articulate advocates of going to Moon, to provide a compelling answer.

But I have not heard one (yet).

A compelling answer is one that can be convincingly explained in an elevator pitch (e.g. 30 seconds or less) to the American taxpayer, and to the average Member of Congress.

FWIW,

– Al

“one of which is to understand how ignorant some folks really are. Thanks for the assistance.”

“Another is to keep my finger on the pulse of policy that some people think is important. Gathering intelligence data might be one way to put it.”

Nevermind. Elifritz the self-important, insulting troll is back.

Bleah…

I’m just a little unsure on your point here. The engineers and space enthusiasts that criticize the Aries/Orion plan are hardly anonymous. We post where we find an opportunity, we call our congress critters, we blog, we participate in every way that we can. While there is little incremental value in each blog post, even you find that our criticisms are getting noticed.

The solution here is not to tell us to go away, but rather for NASA to provide the documentation that shows that Ares/Orion is a good design. GWB told NASA to go to the moon and Mars. NASA’s response was Ares/Orion. How did NASA make that choice? As engineers and technicians, we need to see the goals, trade analyses, and design choices that led us here. Ares/Orion was presented as *the* solution without justification.

You can have our support. We would happily be NASA’s most vocal supporters, if we had faith that the process that led to Ares/Orion was a technical, goal driven development effort. Without the required technical justification, Ares/Orion is just a political pet project pushed into production too soon, without proper consideration; without engineering merit.