luke strawwalker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 9,147
- Reaction score
- 40
Since I found nasaspaceflight.com several years ago, I've been following the discussions over there about Constellation, Ares, Orion, Altair, and the alternatives proposed in EELV and Direct. I've read EVERY message in the Direct threads-- even though I started over a year and about 300 pages after the thing started... it was SO compelling and I was learning SO much about the tradeoffs and the "this change affects that which causes the other" part of rocket design that I went back and over the course of a week or two read every post, and I've kept up with it ever since.
When I first read of the plans for Constellation, (before it WAS Constellation; it was simply the "VSE" back then) about the CLV "Stick" rocket (it wasn't named Ares I until significantly later) and about the "CaLV" (later called Ares V) and the CEV (later named Orion) and the LSAM (later named Altair), and read all the discussions and back and forth over the reasoning and figures behind the conclusions reached in the ESAS (Exploration Systems Architecture Study) and really dug into it, the more I realized that folks were right-- it was a snow job to "justify" the political decision that became Constellation (Cx) and Ares.
The longer things went on, the more screwed up and expensive it got, the more I realized that it was never gonna happen.
About two years ago I started comparing the EXTREME similarities between the VSE under Bush Jr. and the SEI under Bush Sr.... and projected that unless things changed, they would come to the same end. The same mistakes were being made all over again.
NASA had two "golden opportunities"-- Bush Sr. announces the SEI (Space Exploration Initiative) to build a station, return to the moon, build a moonbase, and eventually travel to Mars, and directs NASA to draw up plans to perform those objectives. NASA Administrator Dick Truly calls for a study, called the "90 Day Study" or "90 Day Report" to determine how best to carry out this mission. They come back with grandiose plans for a shuttle built station in orbit, which will become an orbiting spaceport at which shuttles will construct spacecraft to return to the moon, those craft will receive their crews launched on shuttles and transferred to the moonship, which will then go to the moon, laying the groundwork and finally establishing FLO-- First Lunar Outpost, which will serve as a testbed for the development and perfection of systems and hardware necessary for a Mars mission, which will ultimately be constructed in orbit at the spaceport station by shuttles, and eventually crewed by astronauts brought up by shuttle and launched off toward their rendezvous with destiny at Mars at some point in the future. Only problem was the price tag-- too high. Bush didn't want to propose a program that expensive, and directed the Administrator to pare it back. Instead, Truly came back with MORE grandiose plans for long term research programs into the problems of Mars flights conducted in orbit, which of course added to the cost. The Bush Administration again practically begged Truly for a simpler, cheaper plan performed in steps. Truly and his advisors returned an even MORE gradiose plan which was ultimately what was proposed to Congress, utilizing a MASSIVE orbitally-constructed Mars ship which was quickly derided by it's detractors as "Battlestar Galactica" and the whole thing was laughed out of the halls of Congress and allowed to quietly die.
Fast forward... Bush Jr. proposes the VSE, an ambitious plan to replace the space shuttle, service the research on ISS, return to the moon, and culminate into missions to Mars, and directs NASA to draw up plans to achieve those objectives. NASA Administrator Mike Griffin calls for a study to be performed to see the best way forward to achieve those objectives, called ESAS-- the Exploration Systems Architecture Study. Through careful manipulation of the conditions of the study, the questions asked, and the assumptions made, the 'results' justified the 1.5 launch approach, which would have NASA create two entirely new rockets from shuttle parts, one small crew launcher and a much larger cargo rocket, which incidentally was a COMPLETE flip from the direction the program was heading at the time under the former Administrator O'keefe, whom Griffin replaced, which was to fly the shuttle replacement on the EXISTING EELV launchers. Never mind that designing, building, supporting, and flying TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT rockets would be FAR more expensive than shuttle, and shuttle was already considered widely to be "too expensive" and that existing launchers could do the job of the proposed crew launcher, the plans went ahead. Unforeseen problems daisy-chained and compounded, requiring expensive changes that morphed the project into something horrifically expensive, dangerously underpowered, breathtakingly past-schedule, and required almost as much change as starting completely from scratch, with NONE of the benefits of a clean sheet design, or even any of the perceived benefits of making the best reuse of what we already have available as heritage shuttle components and systems.
Sound familiar??
As soon as I had an understanding of the ramifications, like 3 years ago or so, I said publically I thought that if they wanted a cargo launcher from shuttle parts, then BUILD a cargo launcher from shuttle parts-- skip Ares I and go straight to Ares V... put the crew capsule on the EELV, and let NASA go straight to the SDLV cargo rocket... for one thing, Ares I was SURELY going to be more expensive than what they thought... as ALL aerospace stuff ultimately is. Secondly, it was going to be later than anticipated-- delays are the norm in aerospace. Thirdly, the budget was NOT going to be increased, and once the costs of the first rocket were known, and it was completed (if they were lucky) the more expensive cargo rocket would be cancelled, (since it would SURELY BE MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE FIRST (crew) ROCKET) , and without the cargo rocket we would be going NOWHERE and doing NOTHING, except flying a stripped down capsule to a space station (Skylab on steroids instead of Apollo on steroids, or as I called it, "APOLLO ON VIAGRA")
Now here we are several years later, and that's EXACTLY what has taken place, and is occurring... NASA is most likely being directed to put the crew onto the EELV's after upgrading them, and to move onto the development of the cargo rocket using shuttle parts, to keep as many of the shuttle people employed as possible after the shuttle program shuts down.
I could have saved the country 9 BILLION DOLLARS...
Oh well... OL JR
