Is A Human Space Flight Compromise Emerging? (STS Extension/SD HLV etc)

[neilh]

All true. 

Of course there are some on here that refuse to acknowledge any of that, regardless of who says that and why. 

Hope, assumption, vague notions and a lack of a plan are sufficient for some because "change you can believe in" is everything and anything you want it to be. 

Ironically, it is the absence of anything else that allows this belief to continue to perpetuate, which you would think at this point in time would cause reason to be concerned. 

Strawman, much? Do you really believe that's the rationale of those who disagree with you?

[Namechange User]

All true. 

Of course there are some on here that refuse to acknowledge any of that, regardless of who says that and why. 

Hope, assumption, vague notions and a lack of a plan are sufficient for some because "change you can believe in" is everything and anything you want it to be. 

Ironically, it is the absence of anything else that allows this belief to continue to perpetuate, which you would think at this point in time would cause reason to be concerned. 

Strawman, much? Do you really believe that's the rationale of those who disagree with you?

Did I say anywhere, "those who disagree with me", implying everyone as you seemed to indicate?  I did not. 

Not a thing I said was untrue nor did I "target" it at anyone specifically.  Sorry you seemed to fell that way. 

[beermaker]

The President has proposed that we delay any BEO mission until 2025 (with that mission being a flags and footprints NEO mission at that) however Congress has yet to dispose of that proposal.

This is completely FALSE.  The 2025 BEO mission is to an asteroid.  It did not rule out precursor missions. 

Offer me a credible link showing firm plans to leave LEO by 2020/2021 and I will retract that portion of my comment.

Anyway, what is your understanding of the destination to be aimed at in 2020/2021 and what vehicles do you believe shall be used?

Ahh, the crux of the situation. 

That really is the crux of the situation because when Obama proposed to cancel Constellation, that essentially wiped out the VSE at the same time. And *that* is unfortunate because it is the VSE that defined where we were going and what we were going to do when we got there. It was *the* roadmap for American HSF for the next half century. So here we are now with an extended ISS and no way to effectively resupply it, and nowhere to actually go from there. All I see is a space agency imploding. And all I hear from those "knowledgeable sources" (snicker) is a lot of hot air and bellicose about Mars and NEO's but I have yet to see even ONE single concrete expression of a plan or ANY sign of actual commitment to do anything beyond selling out the American HSF program to Russia. CCDev? That's many, many years away.

Yes, the crux of the situation.

Well said, Chuck.

[neilh]

Did I say anywhere, "those who disagree with me", implying everyone as you seemed to indicate?  I did not. 

Not a thing I said was untrue nor did I "target" it at anyone specifically.  Sorry you seemed to fell that way. 

Ok. I understand, and retract my earlier comment.

[yinzer]

Ahh, the crux of the situation. 

That really is the crux of the situation because when Obama proposed to cancel Constellation, that essentially wiped out the VSE at the same time. And *that* is unfortunate because it is the VSE that defined where we were going and what we were going to do when we got there. It was *the* roadmap for American HSF for the next half century. So here we are now with an extended ISS and no way to effectively resupply it, and nowhere to actually go from there. All I see is a space agency imploding. And all I hear from those "knowledgeable sources" (snicker) is a lot of hot air and bellicose about Mars and NEO's but I have yet to see even ONE single concrete expression of a plan or ANY sign of actual commitment to do anything beyond selling out the American HSF program to Russia. CCDev? That's many, many years away.

Yes, the crux of the situation.

All true. 

Of course there are some on here that refuse to acknowledge any of that, regardless of who says that and why. 

Hope, assumption, vague notions and a lack of a plan are sufficient for some because "change you can believe in" is everything and anything you want it to be. 

Ironically, it is the absence of anything else that allows this belief to continue to perpetuate, which you would think at this point in time would cause reason to be concerned. 

It is concerning.  But it a way it's better for there to be obviously no plan than for there to be a clearly fictional plan like Constellation; at least this way it's harder to pretend like everything's going to be OK if we just keep doing what we're doing.

We see where that got us.

Maybe there will be a last second shuttle extension, although the time for that has to be getting short and it's not clear what the added flights would do - just more ISS logistics?  Underwhelming...

[mr_magoo]

Anyway, what is your understanding of the destination to be aimed at in 2020/2021 and what vehicles do you believe shall be used?

NASA is still developing the timetables and details.   Bolden has said this repeatedly.   It took time for ESAS as well... and maybe they should have taken longer given the results.

[koraldon]

Constellation had a vision driving it, one can doubt the execution of said vision - but it had one.
FY2011, as the name can imply is merely a budget proposal with no clear defined vision, goals or timeline. It has a mambo-jumbo mix of ideas, but none clearly defined - which gives hope to the "believers" that their favorite idea will carry the day.
I mean, the new space vision is called "financial year 2011". How bad does that sound?

This is classic divide and conquer. Constallation was a mammoth program, they kill it, and promise bits and pieces instead. But killing constellation is just a rouse. They (obama, bolden, graver) killed VSE, offering nothing but vauge ideas of the future - and without a vision, there is nothing.

I also didn't see anything coming of the Augustine review. It proposed some alternative ways forward but no decision has actually been made how to proceed by the executive. It is again a smoke screen - Some might believe that obama is "fulfilling" Augustine, but that's only wishful thinking, the WH / NASA didn't decide which of the Augustine options to execute. They just leave it hanging in the air (until it falls).

If someone thinks a BEO mission will be appear from the dark in 2020, as a christmas surprise - that's naive. VSE got it right - you have to plan 10-15 years in advance to get such a mission off the ground, it won't appear magically, even if we test relevant technologies.
You need the overall architecture, not just enabling technologies.

I will be happy to be proven wrong and see a new vision, clearly defined with goals and timeline, to emerge. I just don't think we are going to see it anytime soon...

[KelvinZero]

But what compromise would bring us closer to a permanent base on the moon? Who is pushing for it? As far as I can see, a SHLV without Orion and Altair puts us further from the moon, because we will be eating money just standing still. Im not the brightest guy here. There seem to be actual NASA people here who think a SHLV is a good compromise. What am I missing?

[Ben the Space Brit]

But what compromise would bring us closer to a permanent base on the moon? Who is pushing for it? As far as I can see, a SHLV without Orion and Altair puts us further from the moon, because we will be eating money just standing still. Im not the brightest guy here. There seem to be actual NASA people here who think a SHLV is a good compromise. What am I missing?

You are missing that Orion would be re-funded and completed as the default US human crew transfer vehicle.  Because a pure-SDHLV is cheaper (by at least an order of magnitude) than the Ares Launch System, it leaves funding for mission modules that CxP could not because it was committed to launch vehicle development.  Because the SDHLV is not so extreme in its costs and performance, it can be used for LEO-only missions and early Orion-only pathfinder missions. 

CxP called for two distinct LVs (debate the exact requirements but this is indisputible).  One was only good for launching crew to LEO and could do nothing else.  The other could not go into serious development after ISS retirement.  This is not the case for the SDHLV.  Its core is common between LEO and BEO versions, and requires a far less costly development program to gain BEO capability (only the upper stage rather than a whole different core, upper stage and engine development program).  The major advantage over Ares-V (IMHO at least) is that it does not have to wait until the BEO elements are complete to have a useful purpose.  It can assist in ISS support and even carry out other LEO and even possibly GEO missions.

An SDHLV would allow a phased return to the Moon, starting with orbital missions, then excursion landings and later going on to long-duration survey stays.  It is also adaptable for exploration of the rest of the Inner Solar System.  The lunar outpost is still too early in conception to be certain of its requirements, but the basic SDHLV concept is flexible enough to handle most reasonable requirements for that application too.

[Ronsmytheiii]

The proposed design for the large SEP tug has 84 mT of solar arrays.  Something will have to lift that large mass.

That's too big. Make it smaller. No need for a tug bigger than can be launched dry into LEO in a single piece on an EELV Heavy. That will give us a tug of at LEAST 1MW, on the high end (though I certainly expect the first tug to be smaller).

The 1.2MW SEP tug is basically the Earth Departure Stage for the HLV.

I agree that the first tug is likely to have two VASIMR thrusters (200kW) rather than six thrusters.  However transporting a heavy cargo such as a lunar base will need both a heavy launch vehicle and a heavy tug.

No heavy launch vehicle required.

Just repeating that statement does not make it true, Mike Griffin suffered the same fallacy with CxP

[Bill White]

Anyway, what is your understanding of the destination to be aimed at in 2020/2021 and what vehicles do you believe shall be used?

NASA is still developing the timetables and details.   Bolden has said this repeatedly.   It took time for ESAS as well... and maybe they should have taken longer given the results.

If you are correct, then shouldn't Congress delay disposing of shuttle infrastructure (including workforce - private and civil servant) at least until Bolden/Obama/Garver complete their proposal?

Among other things is is the incompleteness of FY2011 that causes me to believe NASA's partially completed plan should not be accepted "as is" by Congress.

Thus, a shuttle extension will give Bolden the additional time you say he needs to complete his planning.

[Bill White]

Q: Is A Human Space Flight Compromise Emerging?

A: If it is Administrator Bolden may now be trying to scuttle it by fueling "Moon -vs- Mars" animosity.

Here is an interesting quote reported by Jeff Foust and it is a well designed quote (IMHO) if the objective is to spin up controversy and conflict amongst space advocates:

“Humans will get to Mars, we will definitely be—unless the nation gives up,” Bolden said. “I have to caveat it. The nation could give up on it. The Congress could say, ‘I don’t care what President Obama says, we’re not going to Mars. We’re going to go back to the Moon and we’re going to stay there.’ That is a decision we could make. I think it would be an unwise decision.”

The Southern California Public Radio interview link:

http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2010/06/11/to-infinity-and-beyond-the-chief-of-nasa-talks-spa/

[JohnFornaro]

The problem with an HLV has always been finding payloads for it.  What are the payloads for this new HLV supposed to be, and where is the money for them supposed to come from?

Ah ! you are not supposed to ask that.

Ahhh... Build it and they will come, right?  Kinda like NSF? or kinda like the shuttle?

...Ironically, it is the absence of anything else that allows this belief to continue to perpetuate, which you would think at this point in time would cause reason to be concerned. 

Strawman, much? Do you really believe that's the rationale of those who disagree with you?

I think he's exaggerating out of frustration.  But consider the situation.  The BSE is pretty vague, compared to the VSE.

I think the administration is listening to the dialogue here somewhat, but the static level is still high, with the exaggerations and all.

So Neil's retraction is golden, I'd say.

Q: Is A Human Space Flight Compromise Emerging?

A: If it is, Administrator Bolden may now be trying to scuttle it by fueling "Moon -vs- Mars" animosity....

That is dangerously insightful. What are his motives?  This s-t-u-p-i-d insistance of either/or regardintg these two important destinations is wasting a lot of time and treasure.  Begin our journey of a gazillion miles, by taking the first step, of 240,000 miles.  It's a stepping stone, fer cryin' out loud.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Q: Is A Human Space Flight Compromise Emerging?

A: If it is, Administrator Bolden may now be trying to scuttle it by fueling "Moon -vs- Mars" animosity....

That is dangerously insightful. What are his motives?  This s-t-u-p-i-d insistance of either/or regardintg these two important destinations is wasting a lot of time and treasure.  Begin our journey of a gazillion miles, by taking the first step, of 240,000 miles.  It's a stepping stone, fer cryin' out loud.

His motive is to divide and conquer.  If his opponents are squabbling over the relative merits of Moon and Mars First, then they are not carrying out a co-ordinated strike against his C-in-C's plan, which seem to be at least disliked by most who advocate BEO human exploration in a near-term timescale.

Administrator Bolden is turning out to be quite the politician.  He knows all the dirty tricks, it seems.  We should have guessed when he demonstrated the ability to cry on cue and, in one of his first appearances, urged us to Think Of The Children.

[A_M_Swallow]

A: If it is Administrator Bolden may now be trying to scuttle it by fueling "Moon -vs- Mars" animosity.

NASA may be going to Moon and Mars but I do know 2 people who are not - President Obama and Administrator Bolden.  Their terms will be over before the manned spaceships arrive.

However we might be able to send astronauts to a spacestation at EML1/2 within their terms.

A propellant depot attached to the spacestation at EML1 or EML2 is a good place to refuel reusable spaceships for both the Moon and Mars.

Time to:

a. sketch out the route to Mars and the Moon, including landers and bases.
b. high level plan the Phobos base.
c. high level plan the Mars/Phobos Transfer Vehicle.
d. plan the EML-Mars cargo vehicle (Solar electric propulsion).
e. plan the EML1 or EML2 (Earth-Moon Lagrange point) gateway spacestation with propellant depot.

f. plan the manned LEO to EML transfer vehicle (chemical propulsion).
g. plan the cargo and propellant LEO to EML transfer vehicles (solar electric or solar thermal propulsion?).
h. plan the LEO gateway spacestation.
i. plan the LEO propellant depot.
j. plan the manned launch vehicle to the LEO gateway.

k. plan the manned capsule for LEO or EML with Earth reentry.
l. plan the LEO cargo and propellant launch vehicles.
m. Announce approximately when the LEO gateway spacestation and propellant depot are to come online.
o. Announce approximately date of the maiden take-off of the cargo, propellant and manned launch vehicles.
p. Announce when the manned capsule is going to fly with astronauts inside.

q. Start building the launch vehicles, capsule, LEO gateway spacestation and experimental LEO propellant depot.

[clongton]

NASA may be going to Moon and Mars but I do know 2 people who are not - President Obama and Administrator Bolden.  Their terms will be over before the manned spaceships arrive.

I'd like to see both of them, along with their deputies, out on their butts tomorrow. They are screwing the hooch for all of us.

[Robotbeat]

NASA may be going to Moon and Mars but I do know 2 people who are not - President Obama and Administrator Bolden.  Their terms will be over before the manned spaceships arrive.

I'd like to see both of them, along with their deputies, out on their butts tomorrow. They are screwing the hooch for all of us.

IMO, they are doing the best service to NASA since the whole Constellation mess (actually, since way before that... even before Shuttle): getting it out of the launcher business and back into the spacecraft and development business.

[Namechange User]

IMO, they are doing the best service to NASA since the whole Constellation mess (actually, since way before that... even before Shuttle): getting it out of the launcher business and back into the spacecraft and development business.

What spacecraft?  Orion is in a massive state of flux. 

What development?  The Galveston "wish-list" with all the disclaimers?

As for getting out of the launch business, ok fine, if that is the "ah-ha moment" that so many think is the key to everything.  So we have ULA and one flight of Falcon 9.  What goes on them?  Dragon is the only thing that is really a "known commodity".  When will it, and all the others, be ready, proven and operational?

I could go on.  I do believe the administrator is an honorable man.  However, I also believe there are a lot of questions left unanswered and too many things that could completely derail everything to just shutter everything and increase risk to ISS on a non-detailed, non-specific plan that may or may not culminate with a crew going to a small rock 15 years from now. 

[yinzer]

NASA may be going to Moon and Mars but I do know 2 people who are not - President Obama and Administrator Bolden.  Their terms will be over before the manned spaceships arrive.

I'd like to see both of them, along with their deputies, out on their butts tomorrow. They are screwing the hooch for all of us.

Fifty percent in the house, two thirds in the Senate.  Start making phone calls.

[Robotbeat]

IMO, they are doing the best service to NASA since the whole Constellation mess (actually, since way before that... even before Shuttle): getting it out of the launcher business and back into the spacecraft and development business.

What spacecraft?  Orion is in a massive state of flux. 

Thanks to having to wait for the dang launcher.

What development?  The Galveston "wish-list" with all the disclaimers?

As for getting out of the launch business, ok fine, if that is the "ah-ha moment" that so many think is the key to everything.

It's not just an "ah-ha" moment. NASA has been operating an HLV (Shuttle) with an MLV budget, which is why it took so dang long for Space Station Freedom to get built, meanwhile the Russians had their own space stations in orbit and operating. I don't have this libertarian idea that it's impossible for the "gubmint" to do anything right (nor did I vote for 'bama). But NASA obviously think that they have to have a kick-butt launcher if they will have any launcher at all, partly because they have so many people invested in launch operations. This has sucked most of the money out of human spacecraft development at NASA for generations.