NASA?s Senate Bill passes after dramatic debate and vote in Congress

Jeff Findley wrote:
NASA?s Senate Bill passes after dramatic debate and vote in Congress
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/...e-bill-passes-
dramatic-debate-vote-congress/

So, going forward, it looks like we'll get a shuttle derived launch
vehicle very similar to what Direct has been pushing for the last four
years. Griffin sent NASA down a dead end path with his "1.5" launch
architecture.

Jeff

I agree with the dead end path, but not so much because of the launch
infrastructure, but because I believe that Constellation as put forward in the
VSE amounted to essentially an unfunded mandate and was not sustainable.
I objected to Constellation on other grounds as well. Instead of being a
trailblazer for an eventual Mars expedition, I felt that instead that the
maintenance of a lunar colony would suck up all of the NASA resources in
support of that and given the real cost and budgeting constraints, we'd have
maintained a lunar base for about a decade only to abandon it when Congress
got tired of funding it. Then we'd see the reality that we would then have
been no further along the path to Mars or crewed solar system exploration than
when we'd begun.

Similarly with Direct, I think that the path to obtaining a SD-HLV was well
defined by the Direct team, we'll see what NASA does with it. However, in the
end, until the ground infrastructure cost issues are addressed it is simply
clear that this is going to cost every penny as much as the space shuttle
program, with less return from orbit flexibility.

And essentially with nowhere to go and nothing to do, it seems a very
expensive proposition to maintain. As defined now it is clearly a jobs program
not a space program.

Dave

On 10/2/2010 7:31 AM, David Spain wrote:

I agree with the dead end path, but not so much because of the launch
infrastructure, but because I believe that Constellation as put forward
in the VSE amounted to essentially an unfunded mandate and was not
sustainable.

Also, someone really botched the math in figuring out the weight of the
Orion that could do what they wanted versus the lifting capacity of the
original Ares-I design.
Von Braun could have told them that one; you always design the booster
to have more capability than what the spacecraft designers tell you the
payload is going to weigh, as they always underestimate the weight, just
like in the majority of aircraft (which they have had a century of
experience designing.)
You know, they could get out of this whole mess just by scaling down
Orion to ride on something like a Delta IV Heavy or Atlas V, and living
with a smaller crew size or less flight endurance.
If you can't raise the bridge, lower the river.

Pat

In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...

Jeff Findley wrote:
NASA?s Senate Bill passes after dramatic debate and vote in Congress
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/...e-bill-passes-
dramatic-debate-vote-congress/

So, going forward, it looks like we'll get a shuttle derived launch
vehicle very similar to what Direct has been pushing for the last four
years. Griffin sent NASA down a dead end path with his "1.5" launch
architecture.

Jeff

I agree with the dead end path, but not so much because of the launch
infrastructure, but because I believe that Constellation as put forward in the
VSE amounted to essentially an unfunded mandate and was not sustainable.

I'd say that's mostly because the "1.5" launch architecture at up
billions of dollars of development funds and produced little to nothing
as a result. NASA should be spending money on landers, space suits, and
the like, not new launch vehicles, one of which was planned to be bigger
than the Saturn V.

I objected to Constellation on other grounds as well. Instead of being a
trailblazer for an eventual Mars expedition, I felt that instead that the
maintenance of a lunar colony would suck up all of the NASA resources in
support of that and given the real cost and budgeting constraints, we'd have
maintained a lunar base for about a decade only to abandon it when Congress
got tired of funding it. Then we'd see the reality that we would then have
been no further along the path to Mars or crewed solar system exploration than
when we'd begun.

True. It would be ISS all over again, only on the lunar surface. Kind
of another dead end mega project which wouldn't lead beyond the earth-
moon system.

Similarly with Direct, I think that the path to obtaining a SD-HLV was
well
defined by the Direct team, we'll see what NASA does with it. However, in the
end, until the ground infrastructure cost issues are addressed it is simply
clear that this is going to cost every penny as much as the space shuttle
program, with less return from orbit flexibility.

It should be less because there is no complex orbiter to refurbish and
maintain. Of course, that all depends on how expensive Orion will be to
operate, since it sort-of replaces the shuttle orbiter's role.

And essentially with nowhere to go and nothing to do, it seems a very
expensive proposition to maintain. As defined now it is clearly a jobs program
not a space program.

Ever since the majority of the development of Apollo was done, it's been
a jobs program. This is nothing new. The jobs program is why the
politicians are supporting a shuttle derived launch vehicle. They could
have supported NASA using the EELV's and other US launch vehicles
instead, but that doesn't spread the pork around nearly as much as a
shuttle derived launch vehicle will do.

Jeff
--
42