“Why could it not for instance be redone as a true reusable deep space vehicle that gets its crew from commercial launch and returns its crew that way…

Likewise the commercial lift to orbit should be structured to “sneak up” on reusability…ie why discard the Dragon’s or whatever Lockmart/Boeing call their vehicle after every flight?”

Although I strongly support the flexible path, I must point out that making space vehicles reusable is not automatically going to make them cheaper. Making a ship reusable imposes significant engineering constraints which can easily turn out more expensive than a non reusable system.

In the case of launchers, a reusable system will be heavier. And in all cases, a reusable system will be more complex to design and operate.

Pop quiz: what is the most expensive part of the shuttle?

Is it making new SRBs? Nope. Fuel? Sorry.

The most expensive part of the shuttle is the salaries of the people needed to design, maintain and operate the system. Making the shuttle reusable was supposed to save money, but the system is so complex that it requires a whole army of very expensive personnel to make the system work.

It is a false economy to save $5 making a rocket reusable if you then have to spend an extra $7 in design and operations. All in all, one cannot say right off the bat that reusable or non-reusable is better. The problem is more complex than that.

Prediction: The flight will reveal that that Ares does indeed have thrust oscillations — pogo-ing — of about 10 percent nominal thrust. There is no practical way to fix this thrust oscillation problem.

Robert G. Oler

http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2009/10/23/paradigms-lost/

there are in my view two interesting pivot points

“The desire for fundamental change in perspective was behind the program’s specific direction to study and experiment with using the material and energy resources of the Moon. From the moment it was announced, the true purpose of a lunar return was misunderstood, both inadvertently and deliberately. Constellation is a rocket program; the VSE is not.”

if this is accurate, if Bush and his folks really meant that by their policy statement…then it really illustrates how badly managed by the administration the entire effort was. If accurate what they (the administration) did was allow Mike Griffin to take a major policy change by the administration and turn it into essentially a program.

And if accurate then space advocates who support such a change (as I did) should have (as I did) oppose it from the start. The structure Griffin put in place, even if we spent a trillion dollars on it, had no more chance of accomplishing that goal the Chalibi had of becoming the leader of Iraq.

This is also quite interesting:

“While reading the newly released Augustine report, keep in mind its background and its assumptions. It is based solidly on the traditional models of conducting business in space – design, launch and abandon, along with the accompanying plea for more money to ensure a “robust” program of space exploration.”

I am not so sure that this is accurate indeed like the first point of the article that I reference, it might all depend on implementation.

Flexible path is in my view a method of abandoning the current launch and quit mentality. To do so requires some thought and economics in terms of implementation.

For instance if flexible path is adopted then NASA should in my view revisit the entire concept of Orion. Why does it have to be a capsule concerned with entering and leaving Earth’s environment? Why could it not for instance be redone as a true reusable deep space vehicle that gets its crew from commercial launch and returns its crew that way…and then uses a “ship” that is refurbished for reuse at the space station.

Likewise the commercial lift to orbit should be structured to “sneak up” on reusability…ie why discard the Dragon’s or whatever Lockmart/Boeing call their vehicle after every flight?

What I think that the true message should have been about both “the vision” and “the report” is that the devil is in how the concepts are implemented…

anyway it is a good read.

Robert G. Oler

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/06/sen-shelbys-crusade-against-commercial-space.html

Does he realize that even NASA had to start with suborbital launches, learn along the way, and make mistakes. Oh yeah, Ares is being built in his state, now I got it, there are no real alternatives.

Ari Litwin
(http://www.space-issues.com)

She’s basically asking for ‘more money’ in her soundbite, aint’ she? Same old, same old… freaking cockroaches infesting the Hill.

Now, take the 4B architecture and apply it to 5C “Flexible Path” and you have a viable program. The off ramp to the surface of the Moon should be outsourced to ESA and Japan. Add China and Russia if needed.