“Certainly true for commercial exploration, but not necessarily for government funded exploration.”

Why not? NASA doesn’t have unlimited amounts of funds to build disposable spacecraft. Certainly there are maintenance and supply issues with a reusable vehicle, but I think we’ve already learned enough through the ISS and prior spacecraft to build something that could last quite a while.

Somehow we need to get away from the mentality we have when considering space exploration missions that “first we build a new rocket/spacecraft”.

“Ditto for the lander, until after we have ISRU. Nevertheless we should aim for reuse, since it would help commercial manned spaceflight so much more than using expendables, without costing much more.”

Well and that’s really the goal – to take over all of the routine transportation tasks from NASA, so their budget becomes focused on just the unique hardware that needs to be built. Most of their transportation needs become just another line item on the GSA Schedule (the government’s pre-negotiated procurement list).

“I’d like that [Nautilus-X], but it would be very expensive.”

No doubt, but likely cheaper than building the SLS, and would provide more value in the long run. Again, preaching to the choir.

“Given a universal SM/ storable “EDS” would a Dragon have to be modified very much?”

I guess it really depends on the transportation roadmap that is chosen, and the amount of commitment there is (i.e. money) to execute it.

If traffic between the Earth and the Moon will be low, then you could probably get by with a generic service module hooked up to a capsule. If there is a need for more frequent (and comfortable) travel, then that could justify someone building a dedicated reusable transport for that route. It’s a function of demand.

“I can see how the versatility of the SM would result in a mass and cost penalty, but I don’t see how it has to impact the cost of the CM. Do you have anything specific in mind?”

If the hardware started out as a SM + capsule, the next step could be an SM with a reusable habitat that can aerobrake in Earth’s atmosphere and stay in space. Next would be a dedicated reusable spacecraft, but still built out of modular components. A lot of options, but again, it depends on demand.

Certainly true for commercial exploration, but not necessarily for government funded exploration. I’m not so sure reuse of the capsule will make much of a difference either way to say a moon program. Ditto for the lander, until after we have ISRU. Nevertheless we should aim for reuse, since it would help commercial manned spaceflight so much more than using expendables, without costing much more.

I think instead of looking to morph a commercial capsule into something like the MPCV+SM, we should be putting our efforts into building a reusable exploration vehicle like the Nautilus-X

I’d like that, but it would be very expensive.

In this scenario, commercial crew vehicles stay optimized for transport to/from LEO, which keeps costs as low as possible.

To the degree that that impacts cost of the vehicle, that would be crucial. But would it make that much of a difference? Given a universal SM/ storable “EDS” would a Dragon have to be modified very much? I can see how the versatility of the SM would result in a mass and cost penalty, but I don’t see how it has to impact the cost of the CM. Do you have anything specific in mind?

“Well, the problem with a dedicated NASA capsule is that commercial spaceflight would still have to pay for separate crew transportation, when they could share costs with NASA if they used a common capsule or perhaps even more than one capsule.”

As long as we keep using disposable capsules for exploration, we won’t be able to afford much exploration, nor venture very far away.

I think instead of looking to morph a commercial capsule into something like the MPCV+SM, we should be putting our efforts into building a reusable exploration vehicle like the Nautilus-X, and defining what we need for a lifeboat. In this scenario, commercial crew vehicles stay optimized for transport to/from LEO, which keeps costs as low as possible.

Probably preaching to the choir on this, but thought I would mention it.

I meant from the point of view of wanting to open up space. From that point of view it would be better than any SDLV, but not as good as ongoing, open competition.

A NASA capsule really isn’t the problem and a SM must fit a capsule like a glove and hand. CST100 and Dragon are not the same size as Orion. I think you mean something ATV like with more deltas V perhaps.

Well, the problem with a dedicated NASA capsule is that commercial spaceflight would still have to pay for separate crew transportation, when they could share costs with NASA if they used a common capsule or perhaps even more than one capsule. I don’t really understand what difference between the Orion SM and ATV you have in mind. The integrated cargo carrier probably isn’t it. I agree it would have to be designed more like a cross between ATV and the Ariane EPS storable upper stage (or a cross between the Orion SM & the Delta 2 upper stage). Or like a 21st century Agena with a life support module and docking capability.

A NASA capsule really isn’t the problem and a SM must fit a capsule like a glove and hand. CST100 and Dragon are not the same size as Orion. I think you mean something ATV like with more deltas V perhaps. Where a Capsule or other system could dock and have that system provide space/supplies/delta V for longer duration missions.

It would not have been unrealistic except for the insistence on an HLV or a NASA-designed launch vehicle. Using Atlas Phase 1 as a dedicated vehicle might have been possible too. Undesirable because competition might reduce launch prices by enough to enable significant commercial manned spaceflight, but not necessarily unrealistic.

A NASA capsule (as opposed to just a SM combined with a commercial capsule) also adds to the problem.

Great– if you have a market for it– sans ISS– just finance it through the private capital markets without government subsidies and don’t try to sell it as a ‘space program.’ Because it’s not. Space exploitation is not space exploration.

I think he’s been very clear about his vision. It’s full utilization of the ISS and all the research we can do in microgravity. I realize you don’t think there’s much to be gained in microgravity. ”

a minor nit…I do think that there is a lot to be gained from micrgravity research and probably manufactoring. My issue is that I dont see that ISS can ever exploit either the research or manufactoring potential. Hope I am wrong but I dont see how it works that way when NASA manages the science like it does RGO

That’s a fair statement. That Constellation may have been visionary, but it wasn’t the optimal vision to best serve the needs of VSE.