Moon-to-Mars Commission Recommends Major Changes at NASA

Found at:

http://www.space.com/news/commission_report_040610.html


Moon-to-Mars Commission Recommends Major Changes at NASA

By Brian Berger

Space News Staff Writer
posted: 04:30 pm ET
11 June 2004


The commission also identified 17 enabling technologies
needed to accomplish the exploration goals. These include an
affordable heavy lift capability, advanced power and
propulsion, automated spacecraft rendezvous and docking
capability, high bandwidth communications, closed loop life
supports systems, better spacesuits for astronauts and
others.


end excerpt



That makes it unanimous again. *Every* official
commission that has ever studied space development has said
heavy-lift capability is essential.

Converting the space shuttle launch system into a
heavy-lift unmanned, cargo vehicle is the way to go.

The last commission (before this one), said a
shuttle-derived heavy-lift launch vehicle could be built for
about the same amount of money as it takes to build a new
space shuttle (about $3 billion) and would take about three
years to develop.

This new commission says it wants to farm out launch
services to private companies. I hope this does not cause
them to pass up using the shuttle launch infrastructure for
the heavylifting required.

I sincerely doubt they could put the same amount of
tonnage in orbit with any other currently available launch
vehicle, and I doubt they could put the tonnage in orbit
cheaper or as quickly as a shuttle-derived heavy-lift launch
vehicle.

I would have no problem with turning the shuttle launch
infrastructure over to a private company, but I would have a
big problem with wasting all the valuable and expensive
shuttle infrastructure that has been built up over the years
by going with some other kind of launch vehicle.

We should build on what we already have instead of
scraping everything and starting over.


TA

"Tom Abbott" wrote in message
...

That makes it unanimous again. *Every* official
commission that has ever studied space development has said
heavy-lift capability is essential.

Define "heavy lift". More than 25 tonnes? More than 50 tonnes? More than
150 tonnes?

Moon is achieveable with 50 tonnes. Mars would need more. If the Moon is
used for the first 10-15 years as Dubya suggested, then an uprated Delta IV
with ~50 tonnes LEO payload will be more than sufficient for that time
frame. By the time that 10-15 years is over, HLV's will be much easier to
build with the _next_ generation of LV's.


--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
...
"Tom Abbott" wrote in message
...

That makes it unanimous again. *Every* official
commission that has ever studied space development has said
heavy-lift capability is essential.

Define "heavy lift". More than 25 tonnes? More than 50 tonnes? More than
150 tonnes?

Moon is achieveable with 50 tonnes. Mars would need more. If the Moon
is
used for the first 10-15 years as Dubya suggested, then an uprated Delta
IV
with ~50 tonnes LEO payload will be more than sufficient for that time
frame. By the time that 10-15 years is over, HLV's will be much easier to
build with the _next_ generation of LV's.


IMO the single biggest issue will not be HLV but will NASA require engine
out capability to man rate.
If NASA does require engine out capability then HLV all but takes care of
itself.

In article ,
Tom Abbott wrote:
"The commission also identified 17 enabling technologies
needed to accomplish the exploration goals. These include an
affordable heavy lift capability..."

That makes it unanimous again. *Every* official
commission that has ever studied space development has said
heavy-lift capability is essential.

As others have noted, numbers matter. The news story doesn't define what
"heavy lift" means. We can hope that the report will be more specific.

Converting the space shuttle launch system into a
heavy-lift unmanned, cargo vehicle is the way to go.

Hardly. Note that the commission called for *affordable* heavy lift.
It's difficult to envision anything operating from LC-39 meeting that
description.

This new commission says it wants to farm out launch
services to private companies. I hope this does not cause
them to pass up using the shuttle launch infrastructure for
the heavylifting required.

I rather hope it does, since continuing to fund that infrastructure is
actually more expensive than a fresh start would be.

I sincerely doubt they could put the same amount of
tonnage in orbit with any other currently available launch
vehicle...

They can't put that tonnage in orbit with *any* currently available launch
vehicle. Shuttle-derived cargo vehicles are not currently available.

One should compare apples to apples. When proposing to spend billions on
a shuttle-derived cargo vehicle, one should compare this to spending a
similar amount on alternatives.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Tom Abbott wrote in message . ..

That makes it unanimous again. *Every* official
commission that has ever studied space development has said
heavy-lift capability is essential.

Converting the space shuttle launch system into a
heavy-lift unmanned, cargo vehicle is the way to go.

The last commission (before this one), said a
shuttle-derived heavy-lift launch vehicle could be built for
about the same amount of money as it takes to build a new
space shuttle (about $3 billion) and would take about three
years to develop.

Boeing recently published some upgrade ideas for Delta IV taking the
LEO payload up to 50 to 90 tons, so SDV is not necessarily the way to
go.

This new commission says it wants to farm out launch
services to private companies. I hope this does not cause
them to pass up using the shuttle launch infrastructure for
the heavylifting required.

NASA should offer to sell all shuttle hardware and IP to the highest
bidder. They could even make this an attractive proposition by taking
all liabilities (including employee severence payments).

Then NASA should buy a number of Heavy Launches (say 15 times 75 tons
over 3 years) from the best bidder. I'd expect to see:

Beoing, bidding with a Delta IV derivative
LM, bidding with a Atlas derivative
New Company, bidding with a Shuttle derived vehicle
Perhaps ESA or Energia



I sincerely doubt they could put the same amount of
tonnage in orbit with any other currently available launch
vehicle, and I doubt they could put the tonnage in orbit
cheaper or as quickly as a shuttle-derived heavy-lift launch
vehicle.

I lost the URL, but kept the graphic which shows capacity of 47 tons
with no launch pad mods, and 95 tons with launch pad mods but no major
factory changes.

I would have no problem with turning the shuttle launch
infrastructure over to a private company, but I would have a
big problem with wasting all the valuable and expensive
shuttle infrastructure that has been built up over the years
by going with some other kind of launch vehicle.

We should build on what we already have instead of
scraping everything and starting over.

If you or some one else has the venture capital and expertise to bid
against the above, then best of luck. My point is that NASA should not
be making this decision as anything other than a commerical
procurement decision.

Alan Erskine wrote:
Define "heavy lift". More than 25 tonnes? More than 50 tonnes? More than
150 tonnes?

Moon is achieveable with 50 tonnes.

Moon is achievable with 25 tons.
Less, if you transfer LOX on orbit.

It will no doubt **** off someone when I propose landing people
on the moon safely before the decade is out, using mostly
off the shelf technology (including launch vehicles),
and within NASA's current budget. Before the official CEV
is supposed to fly manned...

-george william herbert

George William Herbert wrote:

Alan Erskine wrote:

Define "heavy lift". More than 25 tonnes? More than 50 tonnes? More than
150 tonnes?

Moon is achieveable with 50 tonnes.


Moon is achievable with 25 tons.
Less, if you transfer LOX on orbit.

It will no doubt **** off someone when I propose landing people
on the moon safely before the decade is out, using mostly
off the shelf technology (including launch vehicles),
and within NASA's current budget. Before the official CEV
is supposed to fly manned...



I have been leaning the other way. Near Earth Asteroids looks
like a somewhat more interesting choice and I am thinking that the
mass requirements are a bit less. No staging into another gravity
well.

I did note in some small print in a recent RFP that NASA has opened
the door on inflatables again. That was nice. It didn't look to be their
main focus, but at least it's an option now.

Either way you go, Moon or NEA, is going to make NASA unhappy.

My eye has been on Space-X. And some of the RLV plans going now.
Combined, they could reduce the cost by a couple orders of magnitude.
Enough that it might be getting into the small cap company range.

(George William Herbert) wrote in message ...
Alan Erskine wrote:
Define "heavy lift". More than 25 tonnes? More than 50 tonnes? More than
150 tonnes?

Moon is achieveable with 50 tonnes.

Moon is achievable with 25 tons.
Less, if you transfer LOX on orbit.
Has this been done before ?


btw,
http://www.et.byu.edu/~jag42/PDP/propulsion/LSS.html

-kert