Plotting A New Course for NASA

Folks Thanksgiving is almost here. I give thanks for the Space Shuttle and all
it accomplished.

In two days Thanksgiving will be over and black Friday will be upon us. Time
to draw up our shopping plans for the next venture.

If we presume that NASA is not completely restructured into the space equiv.
of NACA (my first choice, with active private ventures seeking to do HSF and
HSE (human space exploration) what would be the preferred alternatives to task
a socialist space bureaucracy?

Time to ask ourselves what can a $19B dollar annual budget buy us besides a
budget busting rocket to nowhere (SLS)?

Here are two proposals I'd like to put on the table.

1) HSE / Non-HSF : Tele-operated Robotic Lunar Explorers

I've mentioned this one to death. It's eminently do-able, can leverage
existing LVs and is nowhere near a budget buster. Puts NASA square on the
education track and gets our young folks directly involved in lunar
exploration operating dozens, possibly hundreds of low-cost, solar powered
robotic lunar rovers.

It has passed the sci.space.policy smell test in that when I first proposed
the idea it was more or less met with silence.

2) HSE / HSF : Nautilus-X type craft as the next generation space station.

Plans are out there. Gradual build-out in LEO using CCDev contracts. Provide
extended HSF stays after ISS retirement. But the idea is that it would not
*stay* in LEO but be useful as a solar exploration vehicle. Capable of
providing tours of the inner planets, with landing options to follow. But the
beauty of it is all that can come later. First build-out in LEO enables
another space station destination (this time US owned and operated) and gets
the operational kinks out of extended space stays with interplanetary
exploration as the long term mission objective. Nautilus-X isn't as big or
grandiose as the ISS in its initial configurations, build-out can be gradual.
The design allows for modular extensions along a central truss. The fact that
NX can go *outside* LEO for long stays I consider to be a critical enabling
technology we should not ignore. Plus it maximizes investments already made in
COTS/CCDev by providing a destination for these cheaper access to LEO options.

3) Nuclear propulsion option for Nautilus-X

After initial expenditures to build out Nautilus-X have been completed and
Nautilus-X shifts into the orbital/cis-lunar laboratory study phase, money
freed from build out is used to develop a nuclear propulsion option that would
allow NX to move through the inner solar system swiftly enough to reduce crew
exposures to both Van Allen and solar-cosmic radiation as well as to reduce
costs by minimizing consumption of non-renewables.

Whilst developing the nuke plant, NX in a much smaller configuration could use
a chemical rocket and act as the transfer vehicle for short missions to GEO
(to install those darling SPS prototypes) expanding to translunar study tours.

If the NX design is truly modular, you would not build out the Mars excursion
version to go to GEO. You'd start with the much smaller version (think
initially of the boxcar items in the front only) that could be easily
propelled with a chemical rocket to get a crew through the Van Allen belts
quickly enough to minimize their risk. (Plus the boxcars would also provide
some amount of shielding.) Apollo proved there is a way to get this done.

Happy Holidays Everyone.

By the way I mean to add; these are just a few ideas I had, I solicit
contributions from all of you.

It's easy to say "No, that can't work, blah blah blah". Well you know what? If
I gut NASA's budget to ZERO, *nothing* NASA would do can ever work.

Give me a reason why, in the face of a looming federal financial disaster, I
should not ask my government representatives do so immediately if they want my
vote.

Wasting money is wasting my time.

David Spain wrote:
Here are two proposals I'd like to put on the table.

Then I proceeded to enumerate 3 proposals!

But since the 3rd is so tightly connected to the 2nd, let's split the
difference and call it a 2+1 proposal...

;-)

Dave

While I'm working on my shopping list...

Instead of throwing money away on SLS, why can't NASA spend some $$$ right now
on studies to see what it would take to convert existing KSC assets like the
VAB and Mobile Launch Platform / Crawler to being able to take full advantage
of the EELVs (Atlas-5/Delta-5) or Falcon 9?

For instance is there any advantage to converting Pads 39-a&b to multi-fuel
capability? Should we build some new mobile launch platforms to accommodate
the different rockets?

Maybe its cheaper to restart from scratch, but I'd sure like it studied first.

I don't think SLS gives us that cheaper access to LEO that is the stated goal
of CCDev. And maybe re-using KSC assets won't either, but who can say?

Dave

"David Spain" wrote in message
...
While I'm working on my shopping list...

Instead of throwing money away on SLS, why can't NASA spend some $$$ right
now
on studies to see what it would take to convert existing KSC assets like
the
VAB and Mobile Launch Platform / Crawler to being able to take full
advantage
of the EELVs (Atlas-5/Delta-5) or Falcon 9?

For instance is there any advantage to converting Pads 39-a&b to
multi-fuel
capability? Should we build some new mobile launch platforms to
accommodate
the different rockets?

Maybe its cheaper to restart from scratch, but I'd sure like it studied
first.

I don't think SLS gives us that cheaper access to LEO that is the stated
goal
of CCDev. And maybe re-using KSC assets won't either, but who can say?

Dave

David, SLS isn't for LEO: it's for BEO missions.

On 11/24/2011 2:00 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:
"David wrote in message
I don't think SLS gives us that cheaper access to LEO that is the stated
goal
of CCDev. And maybe re-using KSC assets won't either, but who can say?

Dave

David, SLS isn't for LEO: it's for BEO missions.

None of which have been defined. Something vague about visiting NEO objects.
Using what tho? An Orion derivative that isn't even under proposal?

Orion is big, Orion is heavy, Orion today duplicates what Dragon does for for a lot more $$$.

We don't need SLS for heavy lift if we stick to the COTS course. So let's leverage that instead of trying to duplicate what that
accomplishes for a lot more $$$ in operations. But we need to know if reusing KSC assests with COTS/CCDev saves money or wastes money.

The NX proposal give us something to spend $$$ on that not only supplements the money being spent on COTS/CCDev but also give us a
BEO technology other than a very expensive to operate HLV. In other words lets spend the money in order to maximize return on
investment. I don't see SLS as that. But I'm open-minded, I could change my mind if you can give me convincing numbers.

Dave

On Nov 24, 4:56*am, David Spain wrote:
On 11/24/2011 2:00 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:

"David *wrote in message
I don't think SLS gives us that cheaper access to LEO that is the stated
goal
of CCDev. And maybe re-using KSC assets won't either, but who can say?

Dave

David, SLS isn't for LEO: it's for BEO missions.

None of which have been defined. Something vague about visiting NEO objects.
Using what tho? An Orion derivative that isn't even under proposal?

Orion is big, Orion is heavy, Orion today duplicates what Dragon does for for a lot more $$$.

We don't need SLS for heavy lift if we stick to the COTS course. So let's leverage that instead of trying to duplicate what that
accomplishes for a lot more $$$ in operations. But we need to know if reusing KSC assests with COTS/CCDev saves money or wastes money.

The NX proposal give us something to spend $$$ on that not only supplements the money being spent on COTS/CCDev but also give us a
BEO technology other than a very expensive to operate HLV. In other words lets spend the money in order to maximize return on
investment. I don't see SLS as that. But I'm open-minded, I could change my mind if you can give me convincing numbers.

Dave

The numbers are still very preliminary-not to mention that contracts
haven't been finalized. And David, I hate to rain on your parade, but
there's only ONE congresscritter pushing the EELV/Depot concept: Rep.
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). His motives aren't pu there's several
commercial space outfits in SoCal, and if he doesn't have facilities
from those companies in his district, he's got constitutents who work
at those companies. Which is the same approach that congresscritters
from Utah, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida have when they
pushed for and got SLS. They didn't want the Administration to wait up
to 5 years before deciding on a heavy-lifter: which, btw, Augustine
strongly hinted at was a good thing to have; they wanted it NOW. If
Rohrabacher was Chair of the House Sci/Tech Committee, he'd be in a
position to push his ideas to NASA, but he's not. Rep. Ralph Hall (R-
TX) is the chair, and he's staunchly pushing JSC's interests, even
though he's not from Houston. And the push for SLS was bipartisan, if
you'll recall.

On 11/24/2011 10:58 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
The numbers are still very preliminary-not to mention that contracts
haven't been finalized.

When you take into consideration even the preliminary numbers for cost of operations of SLS they are not good compared to cost to
operate Falcon 9 Heavy or even Atlas 5 Heavy or Delta 5 Heavy configurations. That's why I urge a study to compare the costs of
re-use of KSC assets with ELVs. It may be the bulk of cost to operate is due to the expensive ground infrastructure and has little
to nothing to do with the rocket (in the case of SLS I doubt this as well). In any case, the numbers I've seen (so far) don't look good.


And David, I hate to rain on your parade, but
there's only ONE congresscritter pushing the EELV/Depot concept: Rep.
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). His motives aren't pu there's several
commercial space outfits in SoCal, and if he doesn't have facilities
from those companies in his district, he's got constitutents who work
at those companies. Which is the same approach that congresscritters
from Utah, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida have when they
pushed for and got SLS.

I understand the political issues. However these are not the "numbers" that would change my mind. Wasting money because its
politically expedient right now to do so isn't going to make for a healthy space program once a "reformer" gets elected president,
who will take the case of money being wasted directly to the American people and starts to wield his veto power. If that reformer is
not pro-space, a government space program that has put all its eggs in the SLS basket will be in really big trouble.

They didn't want the Administration to wait up
to 5 years before deciding on a heavy-lifter: which, btw, Augustine
strongly hinted at was a good thing to have; they wanted it NOW. If
Rohrabacher was Chair of the House Sci/Tech Committee, he'd be in a
position to push his ideas to NASA, but he's not. Rep. Ralph Hall (R-
TX) is the chair, and he's staunchly pushing JSC's interests, even
though he's not from Houston. And the push for SLS was bipartisan, if
you'll recall.

JSC interests aka stated NASA policy *is* COTS / CCDev. At least for access to ISS.
Today the engineering numbers say it should be COTS/CCDev for all access to LEO. Why suck up all of NASA financial resources on
rebuilding the wheel? Let's focus the $$$ being spent on BEO on true Exo-Atmospheric Vehicles EAVs. IMHO NASA should be working in
sync with private companies (as it always has in the past) to reduce costs to LEO. That will naturally lead to all sorts of BEO
opportunities. We already know we can't afford SLS if its numbers to operate are at the same levels as shuttle. If we don't have a
good handle on those numbers, logic says we should *stop* and do more cost studies until we do, not charge ahead full speed.

But I did not start this thread as an SLS vs COTS debate. I want constructive suggestions as to how NASA should move forward. If
that's a lunar colony, I'd like to hear it and the reasoning why. Personally, I favor a solar exploration vehicle for going to the
inner planets (Venus and Mars) and to continue to explore the Moon with tele-robotics. I think surface exploration (initial surveys)
can be done with a manned government program, but colonization or permanent habitation is not politically expedient and is best left
to the NGOs. Government *can* provide important subsidies to provide infrastructure to enable that. Just as it has with roads and
bridges.

To further debate along these lines I propose the following question: If you *had* an EAV and *had* completed a manned Mars surface
landing, what would you do next? Contrast those possibilities against those if you only had a mission-specific tasked Mars program
with no ability to do tours of the nearby solar system.

Dave

"David Spain" wrote in message
...
Folks Thanksgiving is almost here. I give thanks for the Space Shuttle and
all
it accomplished.

In two days Thanksgiving will be over and black Friday will be upon us.
Time
to draw up our shopping plans for the next venture.

If we presume that NASA is not completely restructured into the space
equiv.
of NACA (my first choice, with active private ventures seeking to do HSF
and
HSE (human space exploration) what would be the preferred alternatives to
task
a socialist space bureaucracy?

Time to ask ourselves what can a $19B dollar annual budget buy us besides
a
budget busting rocket to nowhere (SLS)?

Here are two proposals I'd like to put on the table.

1) HSE / Non-HSF : Tele-operated Robotic Lunar Explorers

I've mentioned this one to death. It's eminently do-able, can leverage
existing LVs and is nowhere near a budget buster. Puts NASA square on the
education track and gets our young folks directly involved in lunar
exploration operating dozens, possibly hundreds of low-cost, solar powered
robotic lunar rovers.

It has passed the sci.space.policy smell test in that when I first
proposed
the idea it was more or less met with silence.

2) HSE / HSF : Nautilus-X type craft as the next generation space station.

Plans are out there. Gradual build-out in LEO using CCDev contracts.
Provide
extended HSF stays after ISS retirement. But the idea is that it would not
*stay* in LEO but be useful as a solar exploration vehicle. Capable of
providing tours of the inner planets, with landing options to follow. But
the
beauty of it is all that can come later. First build-out in LEO enables
another space station destination (this time US owned and operated) and
gets
the operational kinks out of extended space stays with interplanetary
exploration as the long term mission objective. Nautilus-X isn't as big or
grandiose as the ISS in its initial configurations, build-out can be
gradual.
The design allows for modular extensions along a central truss. The fact
that
NX can go *outside* LEO for long stays I consider to be a critical
enabling
technology we should not ignore. Plus it maximizes investments already
made in
COTS/CCDev by providing a destination for these cheaper access to LEO
options.

3) Nuclear propulsion option for Nautilus-X

After initial expenditures to build out Nautilus-X have been completed and
Nautilus-X shifts into the orbital/cis-lunar laboratory study phase, money
freed from build out is used to develop a nuclear propulsion option that
would
allow NX to move through the inner solar system swiftly enough to reduce
crew
exposures to both Van Allen and solar-cosmic radiation as well as to
reduce
costs by minimizing consumption of non-renewables.

Whilst developing the nuke plant, NX in a much smaller configuration could
use
a chemical rocket and act as the transfer vehicle for short missions to
GEO
(to install those darling SPS prototypes) expanding to translunar study
tours.

If the NX design is truly modular, you would not build out the Mars
excursion
version to go to GEO. You'd start with the much smaller version (think
initially of the boxcar items in the front only) that could be easily
propelled with a chemical rocket to get a crew through the Van Allen belts
quickly enough to minimize their risk. (Plus the boxcars would also
provide
some amount of shielding.) Apollo proved there is a way to get this done.

Happy Holidays Everyone.

Happy Holidays to you: now to business.

Nautilus-X would be good for the NEO and L-Point missions. But, and here's
the caveat: outsourcing Human exploration to private contractors is a
political dead end. Remember the furor over ObamaSpace last year? You'd get
that and then some. No way would that pass Congressional muster. No offense,
but if you dared suggest that to Congress, it'd be sent to the trash after
you left.

Happy Holidays to you: now to business.

Nautilus-X would be good for the NEO and L-Point missions. But, and here's
the caveat: outsourcing Human exploration to private contractors is a
political dead end. Remember the furor over ObamaSpace last year? You'd get
that and then some. No way would that pass Congressional muster. No offense,
but if you dared suggest that to Congress, it'd be sent to the trash after
you left.-

theres very limited bucks.......

outsourced cost X

nasa direct cost X times 20

this will likely result in doing zero