Author Topic: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004  (Read 11455 times)

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5166
  • Liked: 966
  • Likes Given: 343
Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« on: 06/30/2017 08:03 PM »
Since this is now 13 years ago, i believe its fair to talk about this in history section.

https://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/vision_concepts.html

At 14:00, "Using the Crew Exploration Vehicle we will undertake extended human missions to the Moon as early as 2015"



What went wrong ?

Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Online ZachS09

Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #1 on: 07/01/2017 02:37 AM »
What went wrong started during the Obama Administration. The President replaced the Vision for Space Exploration, in April 2010, with his own space policy.

In turn, all the original plans did not come to fruition.
"Liftoff of Falcon 9: the world's first reflight of an orbital-class rocket."

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2124
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 995
  • Likes Given: 776
Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #2 on: 07/01/2017 04:56 AM »
What went wrong started during the Obama Administration. The President replaced the Vision for Space Exploration, in April 2010, with his own space policy.

In turn, all the original plans did not come to fruition.

That's not where the problems started, that's where they ended.

The Constellation program, especially Ares I, was in trouble and that's why the Obama administration cancelled Constellation.

Offline Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 918
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #3 on: 07/01/2017 06:07 AM »
I think that back in its days Constellation made a lot of sense. The end of the Space Shuttle was looming, and it seemed rational that we need to use shuttle hardware as much as possible. The Ares I Stick had to use one booster, one SSME for a second stage and we hoped it was going to be developed easily. Only later the problems started, when the SSME turned out to be inadequate, and a larger solid booster had to be developed, so the Stick in the end was an entirely different rocket...

2004 was a different year compared to 2010 (when Obama canceled Constellation) and much different than 2017. Back then SpaceX was too young, the private sector seemed immature, Elon started launching rockets in 2006... and it was like one rocket per year. There were three failures in 2006, 2007 and 2008. It was hard to believe that the private companies were going anywere. And Falcon 9 didn't debut until 2010...

And you keep to forget that even though we already had Falcon 9 in 2010, Elon Musk said that there was going to be no gap. Seven years later, the manned flights of Dragon are still nowhere to be seen.

Yes, there were a lot of delays of Constellation during the first 5 years, but there are a lot of delays in the private sector within a 5-year period too. Things are compareable.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 732
  • Likes Given: 1384
Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #4 on: 07/01/2017 06:41 AM »
When it all started going belly-up and costs/delays crept in - the Bush and then Obama Administrations were offered a better path forward to restore Constellation - or something like it - to something approaching a credible schedule. Even if all the pork players insisted on using the Shuttle infrastructure. There was 'Direct' and there was the Side-Mount Shuttle-derived Heavy Lifter (my favorite) introduced by John Shannon... Both Shuttle derived concepts were generally agreed to be a quicker and more cost effective path for Constellation, going forward - saving the tens of billions on two launch vehicles for a more common-use ONE launch vehicle. Keeping both Pads 39A & B and the Crawlers and VAB largely as they were would have saved more money, too! Lunar launches could have been accomplished with a genuine, 2x launch architecture - not the slightly loopy '1.5' launch setup. Far more mass sent to the Moon than Apollo and much greater mission capabilities and surface stay times, too.

And several credible, Atlas & Delta IV derived concepts were put forward, too. And they were with and without Propellant Depots and what we now know as 'Distributed Launch' as touted for the Vulcan/ACES launcher. And now - with more than 7 years hindsight - we know that Orion and the Altair Lunar Lander could have been downsized slightly to fit the alternate launchers to Ares 1 & V. And over time - technologies and methodologies such as Propellant Depots, Prop Transfer, ISRU and reusability could have been phased-in to a slowly improving and evolving set of spacecraft and launchers. When Commercial Space launchers became mature enough - the Shuttle Derived 'Dinosaurs' could have been phased out in favor of the new, reusable launchers. Airlines don't directly build airliners - they buy them from Boeing, Airbus, Embraer, Bombardier etc. NASA eventually could and should be doing the same. It's the Mission that's important - not so much the hardware.
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline su27k

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
  • Liked: 413
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #5 on: 07/01/2017 08:01 AM »
See attached chart for what went wrong, this is from NASA 2007 budget request. According to the chart this year's Constellation budget would need to be about $15B! The whole thing is totally unrealistic in terms of budget, this should be obvious from the start.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #6 on: 07/01/2017 08:03 AM »
Yes, there were a lot of delays of Constellation during the first 5 years, but there are a lot of delays in the private sector within a 5-year period too. Things are compareable.

There is one huge difference: every year that Orion/SLS is delayed means another $3 billion or so of the public's money being spent without result.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 583
Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #7 on: 07/01/2017 10:18 AM »
What went wrong started during the Obama Administration. The President replaced the Vision for Space Exploration, in April 2010, with his own space policy.

In turn, all the original plans did not come to fruition.

This is completely stupid and biased.

- Ares I  couldn't lift Orion because of the air-started SSME siliness.

- Ares V was way too big and expensive

- More generally, ESAS had to use  shuttle components to preserve Shelby and Nelson pork in Congress,

- also ATK large solids from Utah (see SLS)

- So EELVs were discarded with shameless lies (the black zones).

-  LH2 + big solids, inherited from the shuttle pork, isn't optimal. Large kerolox is better (hint, F-1).

- best shuttle derived architecture was DIRECT

- the two launchers were more balanced (Jupiter 120 and Jupiter 232)

- DIRECT however never had a real chance of winning (we got SLS instead)

-  NASA never got the necessary budget (see Augustine budget numbers in their 2009 analysis)

- they never cut metal for the lunar lander

By ranking order, best options would have been
- EELVs
- DIRECT
- ESAS
« Last Edit: 07/01/2017 10:24 AM by Archibald »

Online ZachS09

Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #8 on: 07/01/2017 12:51 PM »
What went wrong started during the Obama Administration. The President replaced the Vision for Space Exploration, in April 2010, with his own space policy.

In turn, all the original plans did not come to fruition.

This is completely stupid and biased.

- Ares I  couldn't lift Orion because of the air-started SSME siliness.

- Ares V was way too big and expensive

- More generally, ESAS had to use  shuttle components to preserve Shelby and Nelson pork in Congress,

- also ATK large solids from Utah (see SLS)

- So EELVs were discarded with shameless lies (the black zones).

-  LH2 + big solids, inherited from the shuttle pork, isn't optimal. Large kerolox is better (hint, F-1).

- best shuttle derived architecture was DIRECT

- the two launchers were more balanced (Jupiter 120 and Jupiter 232)

- DIRECT however never had a real chance of winning (we got SLS instead)

-  NASA never got the necessary budget (see Augustine budget numbers in their 2009 analysis)

- they never cut metal for the lunar lander

By ranking order, best options would have been
- EELVs
- DIRECT
- ESAS

I was not intending to be stupid/biased. I just wrote the first thing that came to mind.
"Liftoff of Falcon 9: the world's first reflight of an orbital-class rocket."

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7948
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2155
  • Likes Given: 5090
Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #9 on: 07/01/2017 01:30 PM »
It is perfectly natural for new or younger NSF members to be a bit less informed and us "oldsters" should help clarify the facts as they stand. I watched the speech by Bush live as it happened and it sounded great but in the back of my mind was "show me the money". Throw in the "Don Quixote like" pursuit of  Ares-1 by Griffin and the resultant waste of time and tax dollars led us astray as existing  Commercial LVs stood ready and up to the task. Orion had weight and technical problems in "The Stick" configuration and was being continually being re-designed. The new administration under Obama canceled CxP after the one-off "Hail Mary" flight of Ares-1X and proposed an extension of COTS to Commercial Crew using existing LVs and new players such as SpaceX, SNC, BO etc... DIRECT was an awesome concept born here by our friends on NSF and was greeted like the plague by "the powers that be" that would have preserved most of the work force, infrastructure and tooling, proving that rocket science is easier than political science. Now throw-in some more political hi-jinx on the Hill to delay, under fund or even kill CC, we got the stretched-out time line to return HSF to US soil...

Edit to add: I'm sure that I am forgetting a few things on the drawn-out "space soap opera"...
« Last Edit: 07/01/2017 07:55 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline eric z

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 315
Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #10 on: 07/01/2017 01:50 PM »
 How 'bout a Vision and National Execution Plan for Space Exploration 2024 instead of ENDLESSLY arguing over the past- when is enough enough already? Now these debates are coming over to the historical section?! :-[
 What if all this mental firepower could be put to use planning and then actually Doing Something with all the assets we've got for a decade or two to jump start this thing already? When it comes to SLS isn't the biggest issue now whether to resume engine production or not? If "Not", then shouldn't those flights still possible be used to orbit the most sophisticated modules and equipment we can, leading to a robust lunar orbit/surface infrastructure?
 I do not personally want to see NASA denied a lead-operational role in space; I don't want to see it de-evolve into a taxpayer funded R and D account strictly for enabling the commercialization of space, though I don't mind if that is PART of what it does. Why in 2017 are we still fighting over the idea of a moon-base? IMHO- ridiculous!
 Some of these threads remind me of high-school cafeteria debates over who was better:Hendrix or Clapton; Page or Jeff Beck? As we got a little older we realized they were all great, well Hendrix of course the best!, and had great music to contribute to society. We also expanded our horizons to include Bach and Beethoven, Duke Ellington and Coltrane-they all  contribute to the richness of life. It's time for the space program to come together and enrich us all again, instead of playing one thing off another: Manned vs.Unmanned/Private vs.Public/ Moon vs.Mars/ Military vs. Civilian/ JPL vs.JSC/Congress vs. Administration/ Old Space vs. New Space/ SpaceX vs. Blue Origin/ etc.etc etc...

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #11 on: 07/01/2017 02:11 PM »
The wrong architecture and wrong expendable hardware all started with 3 flaws of the VSE introduced at the last minute by the party in control to retain shuttle derive.   Recall that O'Keefe, appointed by Bush, was shifting to the 'spiral architecture' and consolidate to the DOD and IP fleet.

Any LV with solids increases the number of configuration to be certified and worse increase LAS abort mass, so CxP Constellation's Ares I, could not get off the ground due to a 4mT to 10mT increase over liquids.

So given the VSE's goal of reuse to dramatically lower launch costs, the existing fleet had unique limitations to achieve NASA and DOD's goal:  Atlas/Delta/SLS were expendable and contained solids

Direct/LV24/25 was not a good concept either but look at the complete picture, and ....
I'm sure that I am forgetting a few things on the drawn-out "space soap opera"...

So we have yet another thread trying to rewrite history casting blame on Obama who listened to the complete picture and cancelled CxP for sound reasons.  SLS/Orion should not be part of the equation.  The assessment became reality when SpaceX re-landed a 1st stage.

Sadly, at least for me, we have a nation and parts of the NASA community who are self centered and easily duped, but its compounded by a party who adapted Russian active measures to weaponize fake news.

The goal of HSF is enable the DSH Gateway voyager to provide long term deep space travel economically.  The technology does not exist for the benefit of all, so the two pronged approach is to preposition supplies and reduce the trip time to balance operations and long term R&D.

Find asteroids to get to Mars  8) 

What went wrong started during the Obama Administration.
The Constellation program, especially Ares I, was in trouble and that's why the Obama administration cancelled Constellation.
I think that back in its days Constellation made a lot of sense.
Both Shuttle derived concepts were generally agreed to be a quicker and more cost effective path
See attached chart for what went wrong, this is from NASA 2007 budget request. According to the chart this year's Constellation budget would need to be about $15B! The whole thing is totally unrealistic in terms of budget, this should be obvious from the start.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7948
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2155
  • Likes Given: 5090
Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #12 on: 07/01/2017 02:16 PM »
The wrong architecture and wrong expendable hardware all started with 3 flaws of the VSE introduced at the last minute by the party in control to retain shuttle derive.   Recall that O'Keefe, appointed by Bush, was shifting to the 'spiral architecture' and consolidate to the DOD and IP fleet.

Any LV with solids increases the number of configuration to be certified and worse increase LAS abort mass, so CxP Constellation's Ares I, could not get off the ground due to a 4mT to 10mT increase over liquids.

So given the VSE's goal of reuse to dramatically lower launch costs, the existing fleet had unique limitations to achieve NASA and DOD's goal:  Atlas/Delta/SLS were expendable and contained solids

Direct/LV24/25 was not a good concept either but look at the complete picture, and ....
I'm sure that I am forgetting a few things on the drawn-out "space soap opera"...

So we have yet another thread trying to rewrite history casting blame on Obama who listened to the complete picture and cancelled CxP for sound reasons.  SLS/Orion should not be part of the equation.  The assessment became reality when SpaceX re-landed a 1st stage.

Sadly, at least for me, we have a nation and parts of the NASA community who are self centered and easily duped, but its compounded by a party who adapted Russian active measures to weaponize fake news.

The goal of HSF is enable the DSH Gateway voyager to provide long term deep space travel economically.  The technology does not exist for the benefit of all, so the two pronged approach is to preposition supplies and reduce the trip time to balance operations and long term R&D.

Find asteroids to get to Mars  8) 

What went wrong started during the Obama Administration.
The Constellation program, especially Ares I, was in trouble and that's why the Obama administration cancelled Constellation.
I think that back in its days Constellation made a lot of sense.
Both Shuttle derived concepts were generally agreed to be a quicker and more cost effective path
See attached chart for what went wrong, this is from NASA 2007 budget request. According to the chart this year's Constellation budget would need to be about $15B! The whole thing is totally unrealistic in terms of budget, this should be obvious from the start.
I am not blaming President Obama, the CxP zombie needed it to die and he did what needed to be done simple as that...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2124
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 995
  • Likes Given: 776
Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #13 on: 07/01/2017 04:58 PM »
How 'bout a Vision and National Execution Plan for Space Exploration 2024 instead of ENDLESSLY arguing over the past- when is enough enough already? Now these debates are coming over to the historical section?! :-[
 What if all this mental firepower could be put to use planning and then actually Doing Something with all the assets we've got for a decade or two to jump start this thing already? When it comes to SLS isn't the biggest issue now whether to resume engine production or not? If "Not", then shouldn't those flights still possible be used to orbit the most sophisticated modules and equipment we can, leading to a robust lunar orbit/surface infrastructure?
 I do not personally want to see NASA denied a lead-operational role in space; I don't want to see it de-evolve into a taxpayer funded R and D account strictly for enabling the commercialization of space, though I don't mind if that is PART of what it does. Why in 2017 are we still fighting over the idea of a moon-base? IMHO- ridiculous!
 Some of these threads remind me of high-school cafeteria debates over who was better:Hendrix or Clapton; Page or Jeff Beck? As we got a little older we realized they were all great, well Hendrix of course the best!, and had great music to contribute to society. We also expanded our horizons to include Bach and Beethoven, Duke Ellington and Coltrane-they all  contribute to the richness of life. It's time for the space program to come together and enrich us all again, instead of playing one thing off another: Manned vs.Unmanned/Private vs.Public/ Moon vs.Mars/ Military vs. Civilian/ JPL vs.JSC/Congress vs. Administration/ Old Space vs. New Space/ SpaceX vs. Blue Origin/ etc.etc etc...

It's like you and your friends all like Hendrix, Clapton, Bach, Coltrane, etc., but you only have enough money to buy one album. Which one do you get? It would be nice to have the money to get them all, but the money isn't there.

Offline eric z

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 315
Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #14 on: 07/01/2017 05:51 PM »
 Respectfully Ron, I just don't look at it that way. We disagree, OK? The pendulum, IMHO, is starting to swing too far to the commercial is great, gov sucks side instead of a good balance. That's the point i was trying to make in silly fashion. This society is awash in money; we're just not doing the best things with it; and reasonable people can disagree with what those things are. I will stipulate that SLS is a botched-birth program, far from ideal- I get all that! I've eeevolved a lot in my thinking since becoming an L2 member a few years ago-I'm fed up with the delays and cost of the POR, but rather than cancel them I want to see Orion and SLS shaped up and contribute to a unified strategy.
 BTW, most record collectors I've known will find a way to get them all, somehow, even doing w/o other things like vacations and expensive suits-ask our wives!

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5156
  • Liked: 783
  • Likes Given: 542
Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #15 on: 07/01/2017 05:54 PM »
I'd say it's like you might be able to buy a few albums, but instead you decide to blow your money on a new sound system (read launch vehicle) and then find you don't have the money for any albums (payloads and missions).

Offline eric z

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 315
Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #16 on: 07/01/2017 06:27 PM »
 Proponent, that's a cool way of putting it but let's get down to the nitty-gritty: We cancel SLS and Orion, tell all the people who worked on this stuff, hey you are lucky you got the pork while we had it to give, so see you later...NASA will do aerodynamic research for the airlines and Boeing to make $ off of, and hence forth each planet will be auctioned-off for exploration to, what-the highest bidder? The company with the most political connections? Or the company with the coolest logo? Good Luck, all!-SpaceX is out-in-front right now; they're the horse to bet on! Will it always be that way? Remember, no bail-outs allowed, it's dog-eat-dog out here now.
 NASA has executed 3 of the trickiest technological programs in human history: Apollo, Shuttle and ISS; and what is their reward? A downward slide to oblivion and ridicule- it's a shame. Caught in the middle between Congress and various administrations, unable to stand up for itself. One last time- nobody here would do things the way they were done to arrive at this mess, but the real question is what to do now?
  I for one, would like to see NASA given a 10 year or so bipartisan budget outline [ length of years up to smarter people than me], and told to deal with the given goal the way they think best; and of "Better, cheaper, faster" I would go for better and faster over cheaper- time is flying by and we only, probably, live once!
« Last Edit: 07/01/2017 06:50 PM by eric z »

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2150
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #17 on: 07/01/2017 07:15 PM »
I have been on this forum for about 11 years now.  Late on Constellation, through Direct, and SLS.  Looking back, the whole Constellation/SLS spending has been a huge waste of money.  Direct or side mount would have used the Shuttle resources more efficiently, and Shuttle could have been kept flying with side mount. 

Resources NASA had:  F-1 engines, 4 seg solids, SSME, J-2 (not J-2X), RL-10, RD-180's (before Russian problems), H-1 and its decendents.  Any number of rockets could have been built using off the shelf resources to their maximum abilities. 

Today, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and potential AR-1's could be used to get more done with less cost. 

In space assembly, fuel depots, and SEP tugs, are going to have to be developed for an eventual robust space exploration system.  SLS is and expensive dead end. 

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #18 on: 07/01/2017 07:49 PM »
The only commercial alternative to SLS at time would be twin engine Atlas or Delta 4H. Atlas probably better option except for supplier of excellent foreign engines. Being government funded projects with same contractors I doubt they would be any cheaper than SLS. Distributed launch or fuel depots would need to be developed, not bad thing but another large expensive.

Resurrecting F1 would most likely have cost more with long delays.

The delays and cost overruns on Orion would still be same.

Cost overruns and long delays have been and will most likely always be part of large difficult engineering projects, civil, structural or aerospace.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 732
  • Likes Given: 1384
Re: Vision for Space Exploration - 2004
« Reply #19 on: 07/01/2017 11:27 PM »
You know, this thread really isn't a discussion of history. It's just the same bunch of people who argue about this stuff on other threads in this forum arguing about it here.
While true - some excellent points and analogies have been made in the postings above. Some people are trying to summarize what has gone before - at least that was my purest intention. Those of us who have been on this virtually unique website and virtual 'think tank' for ten years or more (12 for me) have seen one main thing happen: most of us are reading from the same book, even though many times we are not all on the same page.

But what's also really happened is we've all made statements and judgements during our long time here that have borne out over time as best-case, worst-case and even-worse-than-worse-case scenarios. I've seen people's prophecies turn out either slightly wrong, totally wrong, or spookily nail-on-the-head accurate. I've been in the slightly wrong category myself with my predictions and hopes. But you know what? That's life itself; darn it.

I'm not going to go back to an old thread and pinpoint where it was among the thousands of pages where I said, morosely something like: "Huh! We're probably all going to be still discussing and still arguing about these issues in ten or 12 years time - while billions have been spent, the ISS gets older and nothing much has happened."

I'm far from the only one. I'm always trying to be an at least glass half-full guy - not the 'it's always empty' guy. But now; we see conspiracy theory morons claiming that all space exploration is 'fake news' and special effects - reaching what passes for mainstream news these days. It is actually worse than I could have imagined, ten years ago when we were all discussing 'Direct' replacing Ares 1 & V etc. Adopts a Yoda voice:

"Told you, I did. Now; matters are worse..." :'(
« Last Edit: 07/01/2017 11:35 PM by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Tags: