Comments on: House appropriators call a “time-out” on exploration spending

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:00:28 +0000

This does not make sense to me. What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that it is Thomas Lee Elifritz (who at least had the decency to spout his usual incoherent nonsense under his own name for once).

By: Space Politics » Will Obey obey this request?

Space Politics » Will Obey obey this request? — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:13:32 +0000

[...] is scheduled to take up the markup of the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations that the subcommittee handled last week, slashing several hundred million from the administration’s proposal and calling a [...]

By: Thomas Lee Elifritz

Thomas Lee Elifritz — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 21:44:15 +0000

Either it is clean sheet or it draws on existing plans/designs.

Black and white went out of vogue in the 60’s, and absolutism went out of vogue with general relativity and quantum mechanics. Consider yourself lucky that the vast majority of rocket science is Newtonian in nature.

This does not make sense to me. What am I missing?

Nuance, context, and the phrase ‘clean sheet’ in the Augustine tasking text.

Dr. Frankenstein needs a new assistant, I hear.

By: Martijn Meijering

Martijn Meijering — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:12:04 +0000

Huh? How does They didn’t say that. not directly contradict they just said that any new architectures must build on preexisting plans and emerging launch vehicles.? Either it is clean sheet or it draws on existing plans/designs. First you say That’s the dumbest thing I have ever heard. and then you go on to say Rocket science is about building on previous accomplishments and learning from your previous failures and mistakes. Ares I completely violated that tenet. This does not make sense to me. What am I missing?

By: Thomas Lee Elifritz

Thomas Lee Elifritz — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:36:59 +0000

There’s no room for clean sheet architectures.

That’s the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That’s like saying there is no room for discovery, no room for invention, no room for innovation and no room for anything new at all. They didn’t say that. They just said that any new architectures must build on preexisting plans and emerging launch vehicles.

Ares I was a clean sheet design that totally broke with all of our previous experience or state of the art, and we all know exactly where and what that little exercise in folly led us to. It led us directly to this review, after nearly four years and ten billion dollars. They just don’t want to waste that costly and time consuming learning experience, and inarguable failure. Rocket science is about building on previous accomplishments and learning from your previous failures and mistakes. Ares I completely violated that tenet.

By: Library: A Round-up of Reading « Res Communis

Library: A Round-up of Reading « Res Communis — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:44:54 +0000

[...] House appropriators call a “time-out” on exploration spending – Space Politics [...]

By: Martijn Meijering

Martijn Meijering — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 04:16:47 +0000

Besides, the statement of task directs the commission to go for architectures that build on existing plans or on existing or emerging launchers. There’s no room for clean sheet architectures.

By: kert

kert — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:36:03 +0000

How long would it take to do another RFP for a replacement US system?
US system as in a US launch vehicle ? No time, US already has launch vehicles.
If NASA wants to conduct exploration, they’ll just have to design around existing capabilities. You know, like they do with earh-observing spacecraft, martian rovers, deep space probes and so on.

By: richardb

richardb — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:45:06 +0000

Assume that Ares I is recommended for termination by the Obama Administration. How long would it take to do another RFP for a replacement US system? I assume that Obama wouldn’t dictate the booster the way Bush did so an open competition would probably be held.

How long would it take for Nasa to evaluate the proposals and make a final selection? RFP + Eval + contract award sometime in 2011?

By: Martijn Meijering

Martijn Meijering — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:52:09 +0000

Oh absolutely, ISS rotation should be done through COTS-D. However, it will take a while for COTS-D to become operational, even if it is funded immediately after the Augustine review makes its recommendations. It’s possible the Shuttle will be extended a bit to reduce the gap, but the commission’s statement of task directs them to consider architectures that do not rely on that. In the mean-time EELV + Orion would be a good option. It should only last until COTS-D becomes operational, after which it would serve only as a backup option in case anything goes wrong.

Commercial capsules the size of Dragon or even Soyuz could be launched on an existing Delta IV Medium or an Atlas and that would be a good thing. But if it were possible to launch an Orion on an upgraded Delta too, that would be great. It would probably not be possible to upgrade Delta enough to be able to launch an Orion on a Medium before COTS-D becomes operational, but for lunar missions the Orion still needs to be launched to LEO and if that can be done on a Medium instead of a Heavy, even better.

I’d like to see all “minor” Delta upgrades done as well as Atlas Phase 1, or actually a common upper stage for Atlas and Delta. That puts EELVs in a good position to be part of (semi-)commercial activities beyond LEO.