Briefs: Space Rev review of ISPS 2007; More Ares 1/Orion discussion

Ares1/Orion . . . the foundation of the exploration program. A unique moment in history and time, (seven lives to bring change) so important to get it right. At the very least it should be modular.

Posted by Doug Gard at 11/01/07 21:37:34

Regardless of who becomes the next President, NASA is going to get only ONE new launcher. A supersized EELV, Direct, or even just Ares 1. That's it! Given the current social/political climate of the US, NASA is in dreamland if it thinks it can fund two new launching systems.

Posted by ABC at 11/02/07 06:58:13

"Regardless of who becomes the next President, NASA is going to get only ONE new launcher."

Because you alone of all humans on this planet know the intents vis a vi space regarding all frontrunners of both parties and all presidential candidates with a real shot at the office[rolleyes]

Posted by XYZ at 11/02/07 07:44:48

If they're going to get just one launcher it has to be direct launcher as ares I is pretty much useless with out ares V they are a system and you need both to really do anything.
Thats the big issue with Ares I and V if you build one you have no choice to build the other vehicle plus a separate launch tower etc as they are a system and one requires the other though in theory you could get away with just Ares V by using different srbs or none at all depending on payload though this would be more expensive then direct launcher.
Direct launcher on the other hand is a universal vehicle that can scale from 65T payloads up to 120T payloads and all versions use the same mobile launch platform , tower plus escape system.

Posted by Ruri at 11/02/07 10:53:12

The NASA Watch article gives the following as Administrator Griffin's response about the question on Direct:

"No, we are not examining this concept further at this time, because we have looked at this and similar designs on numerous prior occasions. We conducted a very thorough study of architectural alternatives to meeting our needs for ISS resupply and return to the Moon during the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), over two years ago. At some point, the studying has to stop and the work has to commence. We are well past that point. The suggested approach has numerous shortcomings with regard to meeting our architectural requirements.

This column is not the place to cover all the pros and cons of that approach. If you are interested, I would suggest contacting Steve Cook, of MSFC, directly. As a courtesy, you should copy Constellation Program Manager Jeff Hanley and ESMD AA Rick Gilbrech."

My question is, is anyone going to take up Dr. Griffin on this suggestion, and contact Steve Cook or MSFC (etc) directly ... and pass along the answers to the rest of us (or at least the Direct folks)? It would be nice if it were someone inside NASA, but someone outside (NASA Watch? HobbySpace?) could try, too.

My understanding is the ESAS approach wasn't really all that thorough as the answer implies, but rather was a quick, 60-day study. In the comparatively trivial projects I've worked on (max 100 people for 2 or 3 years, with practically no hardware issues to worry about), 60 days isn't enough to define an architecture unless it's a straightforward extension of what you've been doing, repeatedly, for years.

Also, the ESAS study had what I'd consider really questionable requirements like 4 crew to the Moon per trip that, because of the technical difficulty and corresponding funding needs, greatly amplify the destruction of the (arguably more important) rest of NASA and the risk to the VSE implementation itself.

It isn't as if the unrest about the technical, financial, and political aspects of ESAS started after 2 years, either, as the answer implies. This has been going on since practically day 1 of ESAS. See anonymous.space in various threads at Space Politics for what I consider a pretty good layout of the problems, missed opportunities, and questionable priorities of ESAS.

Whether or not Direct is a better approach, there's obviously a reason (or many reasons) why this groundswell of opposition to Ares I/Orion is happening. Many NASA space access/human spaceflight programs that in hindsight look doomed from the start had similar protests, but nothing like the ESAS implementation has. Could it be that there is something to the protests this time, too? It's worth a look.

It would be a good idea for the ESAS folks to point out the problems with Direct V2.0 as they did with Direct V1.0. Either the problems exist and are severe, which should reduce the opposition to ESAS from the Direct crowd (or at least send them back to the drawing board where they'll be busy), or the problems don't exist in which case Direct needs to be looked at closer by NASA.

Personally I don't have a preference between ESAS and Direct (I favor a more well-funded COTS - EELVs, Falcons, space refueling even - and letting NASA work beyond basic space access), but I'd be glad to have NASA take the time to address Direct (which, to their credit, they - Doug Stanley - did with the first round of Direct). It doesn't seem smart to try to pretend it doesn't exist and let the idea eat away at ESAS.

Posted by red at 11/02/07 19:42:28

I did some checking and the minimum size payload vehicle to do stuff like build lunar bases and large safe interplanetary spacecraft seems to be around 50 tons.
Some stuff like moon base sections plus landers ,power reactors,radiators for reactors mars landers and fuel tanks don't break down well into 20ton sections.
The falcon BFR,and super heavy versions of the atlas 5 and delta IV can lift over 60 tons.

Posted by Ruri at 11/02/07 21:49:49

Musk stated the Falcon 9 Heavy with a cryo upper should be able to do 50 tons.

Posted by Mike Puckett at 11/03/07 13:27:59

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture: Remember Me