President Bush to announce manned trip to Moon, Mars (merged) (2 Viewers)

[John_Berger]

EDIT: Since the comment was removed, there's no need for my reply to be here.

No offense or anything negative taken.

 

[Andrew Testa]

Jack,

Yes, this does indeed mean a short life extension for the orbiters. I don't see it possible now to continue with the 30 year timeline. With all the new flight rules and safety policies that are going in place there are precious few opportunities to launch a shuttle anymore. And when you do, the new requirements for inspecting the tiles are eating up an enormous amount of crew time. I think there's a real possibility that there may be a push for unmanned orbiter flights to ISS. It's an option that's on the table for the return to flight scenarios I've seen. However, I don't see NASA retiring the orbiters until the OSP is operational. They will not allow the US to have no manned delivery system to ISS and have to rely on Russia for transport. We're doing it now out of necessity, but once the orbiters are flying again they'll stay until the OSP can take over.

I suspect that the speech will be carried live by the major news channels and NASA Select.

Andy

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

The latest AP article I've read has comments saying that going back to the Moon is a "proving ground" for all the things we'll need to learn how to do before we go to Mars. I thought it was funny because I'm pretty sure that in the old thread from December I used the same words when someone questioned the purpose of a return to the moon. (I told you so. So there. Nyah. And all that.)

News organizations are giving it a fair amount of coverage, and the AP article I read had quotes from discussion of the topic this morning on both "This Week" and "Face the Nation". Various folks in the administration are talking about it, so it sounds like it's currently a popular topic in Washington. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one major network carries the speech, and if I had to bet, I'd bet on ABC.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I doubt any of the commercial broadcast networks are going to interrupt any of their regular programming for the speech. But maybe, just maybe, the cable news channels.

Andrew: Is that the thinking going around at JSC -- that the Orbiters will remain in service until the CEV comes online? Many of the reports I'm reading suggest that the Orbiters will be retired after the U.S. involvement in ISS assembly reaches core-complete. I agree, though, that it would be less than desirable to have no U.S. direct access to ISS. But, at the same time, the sooner the Orbiters are headed to the museums the better; I'll be breathing a sigh of relief.

As O'Keefe pointedly said to the president: If we were to continue as before, without focus and without goals, we'd always be just one disaster away from folding the manned program altogether. The STS-107 tragedy seems to be proving the adage of "good coming out of bad."

 

[Andrew Testa]

Jack,

I've heard nothing to suggest retiring the orbiters before an alternative is in place. While I've also heard nothing specific about an earlier retirement, I don't see it as politically feasible to effectively close the US manned flight program, even if temporarily. I believe the orbiters will fly until a US replacement vehicle is available.

Some press reports out today seem to be confusing matters a bit. AP reports that the speech will call for retiring the orbiters "before the end of this decade," and that "by then, the United States would have completed its commitment to the" ISS. This isn't strictly true. While the orbiters will no longer be needed for construction activities, the ISS will require throughout its lifetime a resupply vehicle that can carry a lot more mass than a Progress. So I don't see that the orbiters can be retired until there is another way for resupply. There are proposals out now for robotic cargo ships specifically for ISS, but they won't be ready for a while.

There's also the problem of crew rotation and escape, which can't be supported by Soyuz if the crew size is increased, as it must in the long term. Another wire service reported that the CEV (crew exploration Vehicle) will be a capsule style vehicle capable of reaching the moon and be used for ISS visits, and would replace the OSP. But if it can reach the moon it'll be much larger than is required for escape duty. It seems that an inexpensive OSP is still requried for crew delivery and escape. The CEV sounds more like a long duration craft. Also confusing is a report that while the CEV may be finished before the orbiters are retired, NASA may be required to use Soyuz or Ariane boosters to launch it until we can develop a heavy lift vehicle. I don't see this happening at all. First, Soyuz isn't heavy lift. If a Soyuz could launch the CEV, then either of the Lockheed or Boeing boosters could as well. And with its string of failures I don't see the Ariane 5 being man-rated without extensive modifications.

There's no word that the CEV will be reusable, or capable of continual operation. That is, once its launched, can it be refurbished after landing with a new heat shield an recovery system? If used for a cis-lunar mission, can it be refueled in LEO for a return mission, or must a new one be launched for each lunar mission? These are the critical questions I want answered that will decide my level of support. I don't expect them to be answered in the speech, though. It'll be kept high level, with the details coming out later.

So far we have indications for a cis-lunar capsule and an associated heavy lift booster, a manned lunar base sufficient to support dry runs of more ambitious exploration, a facility (in lunar orbit most likely) to assemble the modules for larger farther reaching vehicles, retiring the orbiters as soon as the ISS assembly is deemed complete, and some method for unmanned ISS resupply.

This is extremely ambitious, even if the time scale is on the order of 10-15 year for the moon presence and 25-30 years for a martian landing. A multiple vehicle goal will be very hard to keep. Remember that ISS started out as a focal point for cis-lunar and orbit transfer vehicles, as well as vehicle assembly, all of which were axed.

I'm still reserving judgement until after the speech, but so far I don't see anything in the leaks and rumours that put me off. If the right people can be put in charge, it may happen.

And your last statement is absolutely true. This entire redirection of the program is entirely due to the aftermath of the Columbia investigation. Without the accident, this would never have been considered and we would have spent the next 30 years focused on keeping ISS and the orbiters flying.

Andy

 

[Jack Briggs]

Those have been my questions, as well!

There is a lot of misinformation being put forth by tragically uninformed members of the media (what else is new?). For one, so many reports have referred to when the U.S. "involvement" with ISS "will end." I think these star reporters are referring to the assembly of ISS. Since the U.S. is the principal partner in the ISS and is shouldering more than sixty percent of its cost, I would think NASA will always have a presence at ISS.

Andrew, even at this late stage, can't the ISS's mission and configuation be altered for support of deep-space missions? (Given that there was once talk of an inflatable version of the Crew Habitation Module, one would think the ISS is a "fluid" proposition -- that is, "subject to change without notice.")

Back to CEV: In the Boeing artist's rendering, the cylindrical back portion appears to be a service module. Therefore, an ablative heat shield would be directly behind the "command module," as on Apollo, right? But one animation I saw over the weekend showed this same CEV being equipped with landing legs to support a lunar-suface mission. Perhaps you're right about some CEV configurations possibly calling for continuous presence in space. But would they be serviced at ISS?

Eventually, I sure hope some kind of successor to today's Orbiter would be developed. We need heavy-lift capability along with reusability, at least for some Earth-to-orbit spacecraft.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

Being someone that was born in the 80's I just kind of took space travel for granted, but I've got to say that I'm getting seriously pumped for all of this, which I'm sure is one of the goals of the program in the first place, to get people excited. Combine this with the exploration of Mars currently taking place and I am more interested in space and space exploration than I have ever been, and I've always had an interest in learning about the different planets and such.

 

[Andrew Testa]

Jack,

NASA participation in the ISS will end only when the station is deorbited at the end of its life. Aside from attitude control of the Russian segment and Progress and Soyuz dockings, all communications and control of the station are through NASA facilities. Continuing resupply, parts, maintenance items, all are NASA controlled. Without NASA participation the Stsaion could not be manned. So, yes, NASA will still be involved after assembly is complete!



Only if it's cost effective. We thought it would be with the shuttle, but it turns out it wasn't. We definitely require a heavy lift vehicle to get large cargo into space. But when you add a manned presence and reusability, you begin adding so much weight and complexity that doesn't add any benefit to the cargo actually being lifted that you price yourself right out of the market. We may agree that a crew compartment can be an asset for EVA work on the cargo, but wings and landing gear are dead weight that cost a lot of money to put into orbit to do nothing. The shuttle can put 30 tons into orbit, yet the shuttle itself mases 100 tons. The payload to orbit masses 3 times the actual delivered cargo. That's a lot of waste. My opinion is that the most efficient way to expand our presence is to detach the manned vehicle from the cargo delivery vehicle. The cargo vehicle can be operated remotely or autonomously with the technology we have, and the smaller crew vehicle can be launched separately for an orbital rendevous. Maximize the heavy lift capability, and minimize the man-rated vehicle mass, and you'll have the most cost effective and flexible solution.

Andy

 

[BrianShort]

I keep reading in various articles about this plan that the Moon base would eventually be used as the launch point for a manned Mars mission, because it's cheaper to launch a large ship from the moon. Too me, this doesn't make any sense, since you would either have to build the ship on the moon, which would require huge lunar factories and mining, which are WAY off, if they ever do happen, or you have to launch the parts from Earth anyway. Plans like Mars Direct only require about 3 launches for a manned mars mission (one for the crew return vehicle and In Situ fuel and resource production, one with the manned crew and surface hab, and one more with a backup return vehicle), or 4 if you're looking at things like the old NASA Mars Reference Mission from the late 90's, which was based on Mars Direct. Unless someone can present me with a good argument that a Mars Direct like plan wouldnt work, it seems to me that it would be the best option. If you must use the moon, use it as a testbed to make sure your Mars hardware works as designed. I thought the ideas of building massive motherships was an idea of the 80's and earlier.

I've also read that early manned Mars missions would be orbit only, with no landing, like Apollo 8 and 10, which seems stupid and pointless.

Of course, all this is coming from articles based on speculation and reports of administration insiders, so who knows how accurate any of it is.

Brian

 

[CharlesD]

Brian,

It might be worht it if they could at least produce the fuel on the Moon, htat way although the vehicle would have to be launched from Earth, some or all of the fuel it would need to get to Mars and back wouldn't.

 

[Andrew Testa]

Brian,

The one drawback to Mars Direct is that it is a one shot, Mars-specific mission. This is the kind of scenario that we hope the new direction will avoid. The preference is for a common system that can be used for any manned mission. With that in mind, the moon is a lot closer and makes a good proving ground for any Mars hardware. The advantages to launching from the moon are that you require less fuel to begin the trip. While it's true that the modules for the vehicles all have to come up from Earth (definitely not manufactured on the moon), they can take a minimum energy transfer orbit to the moon to minimize fuel use since the increased time isn't so bad over such a relatively short distance. After assembly in lunar orbit, the mission begins in a much weaker gravity well and so requires less fuel to reach escape velocity, and is not as limited in the transfer orbits available as if it launched from Earth. So they can use a minimum time transfer orbit to Mars, or wherever. This minimizes fuel required to get the components into space, and gives a shorter travel time to the final destination. The advantage is even greater if the moon plan includes a facility to mine and process regolith to extract hydrogen and oxygen to produce the fuel in situ, thereby eliminating the need to haul any mission fuel from Earth. Such a facility has been researched and tested, although I have no idea if it will be included.

But again the main goal (we hope) is not to make Mars a destination, but to develop a sustained common infrastructure that can be used to go anywhere.

Andy

 

[Andrew Testa]

Looks like some of my predictions were a bit off. Latest Aviation Week has a bit more detail on the plan. Highlights:

- NASA creating an Office of Exploration Systems headed by Rear Admiral Craig Steidle (Joint Strike Fighter Program Director, 1995-1997)

- Plan involves an incremental approach to developing technologies for manned exploration. (The sustained infrastructure I had been hoping for)

- Definitely capsule based, launched on comercial boosters, and produced on an assembly line to save cost (So not reusable)

- OSP requirements folded in to new vehicle, and vehicle modules and add-ons produced for specific missions (long duration kits, landers, etc)

-No new launch vehicle development: All crew and cargo will be launched using existing Lockheed-Martin Atlas 5 and Boeing Delta IV. (Definitely saves a chunk of cash, and not a bad decision if the plan is to assemble common modules rather than lifting completed vehicles. Also, man-rating of these vehicles was already planned for OSP)

- OMB has already added $800M to NASA's 2005 budget to cover the initiative, with a 5% increase per year.

- Shuttles retired after 2010.

- ISS participation scaled back by 2016: most funding, logistics and crew transfer supported by international partners. (Got me on that one. I think it's the right direction, but didn't think it would happen. I still think that operations will be controlled by NASA)

- OSP cancelled (Don't agree with this one, as I mentioned earlier, but acceptable if new vehicle is modular enough to not waste lunar capabilities to just visit ISS)

- New technology programs for reusable vehicles cancelled (Don't agree with this one: Although reusability tech is still a bit beyond us and I don't see it being used to develop any vehicles, NASA's charter is still to develop new aerospace technology. Even if the goal is not to create an operational vehicle, the research should continue)

- Early spending on robotic systems to build and maintain a lunar base (YES! I get to keep working after the orbiters retire!)

- Lunar base not permanently manned (Probably for the best, otherwise it would cost a fortune in logistics)

- Lunar base to be used as proving ground for modules to be used for future missions.

- Project Prometheus (nuclear propulsion) included in new initiative (Good! at last, the prospect for decently fast travel times)


So that appears to be the most information I've seen yet. Most of it I agree with whole-heartedly. Even what I don't agree with I can understand from a budgetary standpoint.

So far the only wire service reports today are about a poll showing that a large percentage of Americans would rather see the money spent on education or health care. If you fall into this camp, remember the math behind budget allocation. US spending on human resources like education, health care, social security, etc. is about 34% of the budget. NASA gets less than 1% of the budget. Without mentioning any personal political bias about those programs, if 34% can't fix the problems, adding less than 1% more is wasted. The benfits in technology spinoffs will definitely justify the cost.

Andy

 

[Jack Briggs]

Andrew, I was just going to post the link to Aviation Week & Space Technology's story. Beat me to it.

Your previous post, though: Have you been following all the nonsense Robert Zubrin has been spouting these past few weeks? He's behaving like a little child who can't get his way. Also, I agree with you a hundred percent about the drawbacks to his beloved Mars Direct.

As for your most recent post: You raise the same concerns I have. What is the point of our continued assembly of ISS (other than that we've entered into an international agreement) if NASA is only going to pull out later?

As for the man-tended nature of the lunar outpost, I'm for it only with the proviso that a permanently inhabited base is the eventual goal.

The assembly-line approach to CEV made me reach the same conclusion as you vis. its lack of reusability.

OSP's cancellation has me troubled. And the complete shelving of research into reasuable launch systems equally troubles me. It is the eventual future (though VentureStar's SSTO approach was maybe more than we could take on in the here and now).

I'm of mixed feelings about so much of this, but it's long past the time that we break out of the current doldrums. If this initiative does it, then so be it.

I, of course, share your concern about polling data. You may have read the same wire story I did this morning. And you are aware, I assume, that most people in this country have a wildly inaccurate understanding of how much money NASA receives (they almost always think its budget is somehow on the level of the DoD's!).

Oh well. We'll know more tomorrow.

 

[Andrew Testa]

Jack,

Even NASA Watch has been chastising Zubrin on his antics. He's losing credibility daily by insulting the people he's trying to convince to go with his ideas. Mars Direct isn't a bad proposal, but it's patterned after the expensive one-shot model. If all we wanted to do was go to Mars and that's it, then his is a decent way. But he has blinders on about any open ended method of keeping humans in space. All he cares about is Mars. I'd much rather see a slow, methodical approach to developing and testing the infrastructure to allow us to anywhere we want. With his way you get to claim you planted a flag on Mars. With the other you get to claim that humans can plant a flag wherever they want.

As for ISS, there's actually quite a lot to be gained by continuing with construction and operation. First off, the U.S. has treaties in place regarding the lifetime and capabilities of the station. We're obligated to provide the platform for the international modules and an international presence on board. To that extent it can't be used long term in its present configuration. It doesn't have the power or cooling capacity to support all the modules. So we have to continue construction to the point where it can provide the needed utilities and functions. Beyond those obligations however I think most of the advanced features and modules beyond what's considered "core complete" will be dropped (like node 3, centrifuge, external experiment pallets, etc.)

Besides obligations, ISS is a treasure trove of "lessons learned" for how to (or how NOT to) build complex structures in space. This can only benefit the new initiative. Continued operation of the station will continue to add to this knowledge, and you can bet that many of the experiments sent there will now be linked to long duration manned flight and the developing concepts. In addition, the new program will be a slow one. The CEV won't fly until the end of the decade most likely, and that will be to LEO for extensive testing and ISS visits. In all that time ISS provides a continued manned presence in space. In the old days we'd fly a few long-duration orbiter missions packed with experiments to prepare, but that won't ever happen again. So our presence has to be on ISS until CEV becomes our primary manned access method and the moon base is a reality. So there's still a lot to be gained by continuing. Besides, I don't believe we'll pull out entirely, just reduce our participation. By that time the station will be over halfway through it's design lifetime anyway.

I'm not concerned about the lack of reusability for the CEV. One of the downsides of a reusable system is you don't keep building them. Once you have enough, you shut down the line. And as we've so painfully seen, if you lose any (and it's inevitable that we will) you're screwed if you can't replace them. With a continuous production line for CEVs there'll never be a lack of spares or the overhead of maintaining an ageing fleet.

Andy

 

[DaveDickey]

It's great to read that so many people are interested in the space program and looking forward to a renewed effort.

REMEMBER:

Although Bush may initiate such program, it will take the committment of several successive administrations to make it happen. It must be a national priority for many years... This is where things get squishy.

Dave

 

[BrianShort]

Andrew: Thanks for the reply, and I guess I can see the benefits of launching from the moon. I am probably guilty, like Zubrin is, of being focused only on Mars. I really want to see us land a man there before I'm too old to care. But I can see how a sustained infrastructure will be good in the long run. And I guess I can see how Zubrin is focused on Mars an nothing else. It really comes across in his book, The Case for Mars. I read the first half of that, but stopped once I reached the terraforming part. I'm a bit skeptical that would actually work, even 100-200 years in the future when our technology is way beyond what it is today.

Have you seen any info on how big of a crew the CEV would be designed to hold?

I'm also curious how current and future planned robotic missions (JIMO, MRO, Mars 2009 rover) will be affected by this new plan.

What are the launch costs of the Atlas V and Delta IV. How big of a craft could a single shot carry?

I heard the speech is at 3pm EST, is this correct?

Brian

 

[Andrew Testa]

Brian,

Yes, the speech is at 3pm EST, which is only an hour and a half from now, so I hope your reading! I don't know the crew capacity of the CEV, since the requirements haven't been written yet, but the OSP requirements will be part of the CEV, and the OSP was required to carry 2 to 4 people. So look for at least that many.

This shouldn't have any effect on future unmanned missions. The redirection is focused solely on manned flight. The only change would be that the shuttle is no longer available as a launch platform. That's ok though since the expendables can launch whatever the shuttle could. I don't know the launch costs for either, but it's a heck of a lot less than a shuttle launch. I'll have to look that up. Off the top of my head I think the Atlas can lift 50K lbs and the Delta 40K. Not quite whaat the shuttle can do at max, but it rarely ever carried anything that massive anyway. Most payloads were around 35K at most.

Another tidbit: while the AVWEEK article only mentioned the atlas and delta for CEV launch, I've been told that the plan will have to include a heavy lift vehicle for the kinds of masses needed for moon-bound cargo. Possibly a Shuttle-C to take advantage of existing infrastructure. But this won't be developed right away.

Andy

 

[Jack Briggs]

I've been thinking about Shuttle-C as well.

Hey, let's get our pals over in Russia to resurrect the Energya launch vehicle developed for their now-defunct Buran orbiter!

 

[BrianShort]

I'm watching CNN now. Nice break from studying my EMT-Basic course.

Brian

 

[Travis Hedger]

www.whitehouse.gov is carrying a live 225kb Real Stream right now.