Another Exploration Roadmap to Consider
Cislunar is the next destination for America in space, Cislunar Space Next (Paul Spudis)
“Develop a space transportation system using existing assets to the extent possible, build new reusable vehicles to transit cislunar space, develop lunar resources with the aim of propellant production, emplace staging nodes in LEO (use existing ISS), geosynchronous orbit (GEO), Earth-Moon L-1, low lunar orbit (LLO) and on the lunar surface.”
Brochure
Here is the plan that was missing from the NASA Why We Explore Space Concept Maps:
http://nasawatch.com/archiv…
I wonder how much Spudis got to come up with the plan? I wonder why NASA seems to be unaware of the plan.
The big mistake seems to be the prominent display of the Orion capsule on the cis-lunar spacecraft. It implies that a big piece of the spaceship is thrown away after every mission. Why don’t they simply return the cislunar vehicle to the ISS to refurbish, resupply, and then head out to ever more distant territories?
Paul – “Liberation Points”, top right of page 1. Shouldn’t that be “Libration Points”? Great idea for the brochure, hopefully it sees a lot more eyes. Fantastic job on brochure itself also.
Good catch Mikato. Horoscope fanatics might think that the LIbration Points suggest NASA is going to the constellation of Libra (hey, there are people that think the U.S. flag has 52 stars).
Maybe they did mean “Liberation Points” and are hoping to send space systems to locations in space that are liberated from fiscal constrains, political agendas, and leadership vacuums, liberating themselves from all. Perhaps saying Lagrangian Points would have prevented the wording error.
I had thought of that kind of liberation 🙂
Looks like a railroad to the moon? How can we do it CHEAPER?
This is a plan!
This is exactly where we should have been planning to go for the last quarter century.
This plan makes use of what we have instead of throwing it all away and trying to start over, which is what NASA, thanks to its NIH attitude has always done in the past. Lets throw it all away so that we can start something new and do it better than ever before.
Its about time that someone came up with something realistic and useful. Thanks Mr. Spudis! Maybe we’ll elect you next NASA Administrator.
“This plan makes use of what we have instead of throwing it all away and trying to start over“
Brian,
That’s the part that really hurts. Everything we have, unfortunately doesn’t include everything we’re going to need, and some of what we have isn’t really of any use in this or any other sensible program. The problem, as I see it, is that over the last 30+ years, NASA — of its own volition or by direction — has habitually approached each program as a stand-alone, instead of as a step on the road to “something realistic and useful.” So the likelihood that any of what we already have is effectively useful for the next big dream boils down to dumb luck. To the best of my knowledge, none of what we have was planned to be part of an on-going, sustainable, evolving space program/network, and therefore the puzzle pieces won’t really fit together, and this plan (or any other) would end up deviating wildly from its initial form as one surprise after another creeps up (which so typically happens with NASA programs).
People are calling this a plan, but I respectfully disagree. It is yet another shopping list, this time combining what we have with what we also want, combined with some very broadly stated goals, but nowhere near enough detail. There are too many “magic happens here” items where we suddenly go from what we want next to now that we’ve got that with no explanation of how it’s supposed to happen. (I’m no fool; I realize that, odds are, if this presentation did include all of the details, hardly anybody would take the time to read it all before starting to comment.)
As I’ve said in other posts, NASA always seems to go to extremes, either inappropriately trying to reuse existing hardware components and elements, or completely ignoring what has gone before and reinventing the wheel every time. And neither one makes sense (to me, at least). If components and/or systems are going to integrate, it’s because they were designed to do so from day one. If one of the requirements for a system — specified before design begins — is that it shall integrate with other specified systems (legacy, current and/or future), then the results can be used together, like puzzle pieces, to form a coherent picture, but only if that ability has been designed in from the start. Believing anything else is wishful thinking (review the events of Constellation).
Since the time of von Braun, people have talked about building an infrastructure for space and it has never happened, because either the idea is scorned as too big, or because people mistakenly believe that you can start it in the middle and succeed, which is exactly what I see with this “plan.” Speaking strictly for myself, I think we need that infrastructure and always have, but not a single program to date has been a planned step towards developing that infrastructure, logically, from the start, and building on it as capability and funding allow.
If I may borrow from science fiction, the late, great Robert Heinlein had a large chart of events on his office wall that John Campbell called his “future history,” and it was a timeline of events, in logical order in terms of social events and technological interdependencies, and most of his stories were written against a background of this timeline such that each story stood alone as a complete and logical entity, but was also a part of his overall “history.” NASA, and those with whom it interacts, need such a timeline on their communal office wall. A reconciled, internally consistent “future history” — with no wishful thinking, only reality — that serves as an overall master guideline and master schedule for NASA programs. If adhered to, this could lead to the growth of our needed infrastructure, and do so in a way that allowed us to get maximum use of this infrastructure as its grows. “Big Plans” of the past typically have to be complete before they are useful, but that needn’t be the case if you make early use one of the criteria for your “future history” timeline.
I’m really tired of “plans” that pretend we can go from (essentially) nothing useful to happily-ever-after in one program. That’s just not going to happen, ever, under any circumstances. Developing a space infrastructure, Cislunar or any other, is going to take several back-to-back programs that build on one another in a preplanned manner because they have been designed to do so. The sooner we get started, no matter how small the initial program(s), the sooner we can get an infrastructure in place, but it’s not going to happen all at once — especially in today’s economic climate.
Brian, please note that this tirade was not aimed entirely at you. It’s just that your observations gave me the opening to say something that’s been burning inside me for quite a while. Sorry to go on so long.
Steve
I just read it again. Worth every word Steve.
Mr. Whitfield
I been thinking about your comment in Another Exploration Roadmap to Consider. About us needing a coherent infrastructure plan. Your comment is wise and important. I think it explains what I mean when I call for us to build a railroad to the inner solar system. I strongly agree with your post and feel it should be considered a guide not a tirade. I have no idea if musk and his people have any detailed plan like you suggest, but from my very limited knowledge watching them design their architecture, that is the only time I have seen anybody appear to have a long sighted goal and then start to design vehicles/infrastructure to achieve that Goal. Given our political structure I do not feel that it will ever be possible to fund an infrastructure plan properly. A steady growing funded infrastructure is the reason china will pass us by unless commercial can some how boot strap a way.
The talk these days is Newts moon ideas. Do you think it’s possible to use x prizes so that commercial can build the infrastructure needed to get us off this rock anytime soon?
Personally I don’t really care what direction, moon mars asteroids or all three at once. As long as we have a mission plan that can build sustainable infrastructure.
I noted that you have been watching this revolving circus closely for thirty years. Well isn’t it obvious that it doesn’t work and never will?
Don’t we need to take Space transportation away from NASA?
If something doesn’t work find another way. Isn’t commercial/newbie/piglet/space the ONLY choice?
I’m not just a Spacex fan, I just don’t see another workable affordable way.
Anyway like the optimistic kid in the joke I’ll keep digging in this room and hopefully find Mr. Consequences pony. With this much s$&@ his pony has to be in here some place! lol
Doesn’t take a rocket scientistt
Ps Spacex got their super Draco going 🙂 just a little hope in the big infrastructure picture puzzle 🙂
I begged consequence to write down that plan. Lol He knows a good one. I bet you do too.
Good day DTARS,
The need for an infrastructure goes right back to the early writings of Wernher von Braun; he saw the need and the advantages right from the outset and I don’t think anything technical or physical has changed since then, has it?
One thing we need to get straight — please call me Steve. I only let bill collectors and children call me Mister.
“I have no idea if Musk and his people have any detailed plan like you suggest”
I would be very surprised if they did, or any aerospace company for that matter, because I don’t think it’s something that can be built and/or operated by a single company. In fact, there may not be any one company with all of the necessary resources and design experience. A space infrastructure is not as huge an item as many of the past studies and proposals made it out to be, but it is a large undertaking, and isn’t going to be accomplished, or paid for, over night. It’s going to take multiple contractors, and it’s going to take considerable time, but most of all, it’s going to require an overall coordinator/authority, which, in theory, would be NASA, except that they have not been allowed to think in terms of executing an infrastructure program set, or of contracting it out to a large experienced outfit like Boeing. (I deliberately say “program set” because, like we’ve said here and elsewhere, it’s simply too big, expensive and long term a job to put into a single program, with an unprintably big price tag.) To me, this basically means that either the federal government or a very large, visionary commercial consortium would have to seriously commit to the infrastructure “programs” and be responsible for the entire plan, the implementation strategy, the program management, contract management, and all the rest, unless NASA is empowered and reinvigorated to do it.
Although we haven’t delved too deeply into details, in the broad strokes I think you and I are basically of the same mind with respect to the need for a relevant space infrastructure, and our good friend No One of Consequence has indicated that he is likewise primarily oriented by the infrastructure need. A lot of other people on NASA Watch, and elsewhere, appear to have a similar opinion in this matter, but where there appears to me to be considerable discrepancy is in the components that are envisioned as necessary for an infrastructure, and this, I believe, is driven by each person’s view of the goal(s) that the infrastructure would be used to achieve. Those who’s primary drive is getting back to the Moon imagine an infrastructure that is optimized (and limited) to achieving that singular goal. Even more subtle differences in purpose have large effect on the makeup of the infrastructure. If we stick with Moon fans for a minute, some people want a base, some want to colonize, some want resource development and/or manufacturing. Each of these has unique infrastructure elements and performance requirements. And when we add in Mars, asteroids, the lagrange points, cis-lunar space, outer planets, etc., the variations in infrastructure requirements become very large.
So, an essential, top-level decision is, Which of these orientations do we want to do first?, Or is there a combination of these that can be accommodated?, or even, Is it possible to design a space infrastructure that can, eventually, accommodate most or even all of the different goals, and if so, which ones are priority? It’s obviously a very complicated question, and I see answering it (properly) as a major program all by itself — a major program, not a 6-week study or a 50-page PowerPoint file. This idea, I imagine, would never even make it to the starting point today because the competition and the nay-sayers will just whine, Not another study?!
I think that any serious steps towards building an infrastructure must start with recognition by the majority for the need, which, hopefully, leads to majority commitment to the undertaking, and the willingness to make available the necessary resources. And most of all, everyone involved (even changing/new players) absolutely must be willing to stick with the plan for the duration, not revise, debate, or threaten it after every minor election and media poll. So, when I say, “the majority,” that needs to be completely divorced from bipartisan politics and who’s in power. And there must be agreement that a task of this size and cost must be immune from being held hostage to the vagaries of other political issues. The pessimist in me says that the content of this paragraph alone is enough to indicate that we are not going to get, or even start on, our infrastructure any time soon. Both the people and the politicians need to grow up a lot more first. As complex and demanding as most people’s lives can be, it seems to me that at the level of group action we are still very much undisciplined children. I truly believe that the content of this paragraph spells out the stumbling block that continues to keep us from doing space, and many other important things, properly, or at least significantly better in terms of what we’re individually and collectively capable of.
Given your long experience on this little blue planet of ours, do you think the previous paragraph is right or wrong? And if you think it’s right, do you see any way that the situation will change any time soon? Are there ways that we can individually and/or collectively encourage changes in how people think, act and speak with respect to space in general, and infrastructure and long-term commitment in particular? Left to themselves, things will probably just continue in the direction they’ve been going, and the important issues will, at best, continue to tread water, while both the people and the politicians spend their time and energy on their personal wants, mostly ignoring the needs except those which are immediately threatening, like not paying the rent.
So, as I said above (so may words ago), it appears to me that you and I view the space infrastructure (and related issues) in a very similar way, but unfortunately we are, for the time being, very much in the minority on this planet. Hopefully time will change the situation for the better, but not likely, I fear, in our time. But we can still keep the faith and keep our fingers crossed. I just wish I knew what else we could do. With a little luck, maybe Mr. Consequence will at least get his pony.
“Don’t we need to take Space transportation away from NASA?”
I think that’s an excellent question. Unfortunately, I think most people, these days, will answer that based on an emotional reaction to recent events, rather than logical assessment. Personally, I think we specifically need to take LV design and building away from NASA. And more importantly, I think we desperately need to take NASA away from Congress! I think NASA has been caught between a rock and a stupid place. NASA is supposed to (by law) take its direction from the President, not Congress, and the President is supposed to formally report to Congress (about NASA) once a year. But Congress seems to consider itself above the law, simply because they make the law. Although the NASA/White House/Congress relationship has never been particularly smooth or by the book, in the last 10 to 15 years it has become a third-rate comic book. The often-arbitrary, uninformed actions of Congress have seriously hamstrung both NASA’s ability to operate and the President’s ability to direct NASA. They have turned NASA from a civil space agency into a part-time political pawn. We all know that some parts of NASA are not working well at all, and a lot of people are critical of NASA’s performance. And clearly, some of that animosity is justified. But let’s look at the other side of the coin for a minute. Imagine yourself working a job that you really believe in, something you’ve maybe looked forward to for years. And then imagine that you discover that, day to day, there are people who are preventing you from doing your job, or at least keeping you from doing it properly. Being conscientious, you do your best, but with the frustration and constant changes in direction, how would you cope? When people who don’t understand what you do and whom you’ve never met continue to frustrate your best efforts, how long would it be until you stopped giving your best every day, and just hung in there until you could find another job opportunity elsewhere. How would you feel if overfed politicians and disillusioned bosses had put your life into a condition where “career” was just an archaic word in the dictionary?
I very strongly believe that NASA can once again be not only a viable agency, but one of America’s most important assets. They need to be given back their original mandates, given clear direction from the President, be allowed once again to formulate and formally propose long-term programs, and then be let alone to do their jobs, without micromanagement from clueless politicians, and with timely independent oversight on the things that should have them. Let NASA be the NASA of the 1960s (on a smaller scale, of course) and they can probably achieve like the NASA of the 1960s.
“I begged consequence to write down that plan”
A final comment. This post was very long, yet it only scratches the surface of the issues you raised and the few questions you asked. I go on so long because I think the meat is in the details and I try never to leave a reader making assumptions, and not sure about what I was saying. Failure to do so, in a post or any other communication, inevitably leads to confusion and the need for clarification. So, asking NOoC to write down his plan is not unlike asking him to write a novel, especially considering the amount of experience he’s carrying around in his head and the number and nature of the people he knows are going to read a NASA Watch post. So, if he doesn’t respond to your request right away, in detail, or even at all, I’m sure he’s not simply ignoring you. It’s a mammoth, time-consuming job, and it would take even more of his time, after posting it, to then defend it against the inevitable attacks it will receive by people with other opinions. And most of all, if he did do it, and did it right, by the time it was finished it would no longer be relevant to any current posts. I’m not reading his mind, and it’s presumptuous of me to speak on his behalf, but I’ve been in a similar position a number of times, and it’s sometimes frustrating to be asked, simply because of the time it takes to do it right.
Perhaps those of us interested in cooperatively developing and/or assessing space plans should find a way outside of NASA Watch, or any other blog, to exchange and discuss ideas, and perhaps develop our own plan. Who knows, maybe the finished article will be a NW item one day.
Steve
Steve I read your post and will think then answer thanks for some common sense
George
Mr. Whitfield
Has founding member of Space Transportation Infrastructure Unlimited. You are hired. We provide no pay and no benefits. If you agree to my terms we can proceed.
A week or so ago I suggested forming STI U and hiring people of like minds from NASA watch to take over all transportation responsibilities from NASA and provide space transportation for USA if not the world while partnering with Spacex. Our job or goal would be to help commercial have the infrastructure plan to guide space growth and development. I say commercial because I have little faith in public programs and this would be a way to get away from congress in the long term. But let’s not quibble.
The idea of forming a group that has long term infrastructure as it’s existence/goal is a good one. Maybe we could make space infrastructure a buzz word so that it gets attention in either pubic or commercial circles.
First we need a free place of business or website to start our company/public awareness venture. Any suggestions? Maybe a face Book.
A possible activity of STi U could to be to outline an infrastructure plan that could be written by you but be available to others who could make suggestions. Perhaps you or a small number of wise people could be in control of the infrastructure plan.
So the plan could be a semi maulable
document that can evolve over time.
Working on the plan and having others work on or make suggestions for the plan knowing that it is a grand global infrastructure should make people realize that they can’t have it all their way.
I would suggest starting at the beginning earth to Leo and thinking bare bones lean and cheap. Which is why I lean to it being primarily for commercial because I just don’t see public willing to do things in a small cost efficient manor. But a plan is plan, anyone could use it.
I would suggest getting with Elon Musk of Spacex soon. He has the goal of going to mars in 20 years or so and he seems to understand what you need to be doing on the system level so I would think that he would be very open to any infrastructure ideas to help him in developing and planning ways to get us off this rock.
Yes NASA should do it but they won’t soo lol why don’t we/you and other wise ones like Mr. Consequence. I’m sure NASA would want to follow/help just like they follow Mr. Musk when their not doing congresses foolishness.
The answer to your questions all of them are I don’t know. But it sure wouldn’t hurt for someone like you, Consequence, and others to start outlining a global and as affordable infrastructure plan as soon as possible and try to get people aware and excited about it.
What’s to gain everything. What’s to lose nothing.
Steve I have very little to offer. On this ball field I’m kinda of like that kid in the football movie Rudy. Hit me again lol
Anyway I did asked Consequence to write a book and have it ready to be on Charley Rose in the fall after the election. His answer was close to what you said. I guess you missed those late posts in the ULA thread I think.
okkk I’ll call you Steve only if you allow me to call you Mr. Whitfield when I want to lol.
At times I have tried to think up creative ideas for rocket design and mission plans that have creating better rockets/infrastructure in mind.
Perhaps we could have a place where people post only ideas that are designed to help create infrastructure kinda like NASA watch but for the soul purpose of creating ideas that the wise few could consider to include.
Maybe even keith may want to setup an infrastructure site like the other spinoffs of NASA watch. I have tried to use NASA watch partly in a way it is not designed for. Even with
My limited knowledge I have tried to brain storm lol in my case brain breeze lol and then put my ideas out there in hopes that someone smarter and more knowledgeable will pickup on something I have said and hopefully use it, improve it, and do something with it. Well am I the only one with a need to try to help create infrastructure ideas? Well your idea blog could be kinda like that. Infrastructure brain storming place.
Steve I’ve been at NASA watch about 2 years I know many people here sit back and hide who they are but it seems to me that Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Consequence, and Tinker could put their heads together and make a smart infrastructure outline if not others to.
I could never understand why no one would talk to tinker about his big lifter idea?????? To me that is a wonderful design with all kinds of possibilities. I know the types of infrastructure, you want to write about are things in space that I know nothing about. You may recall I saved and studied tinkers lifter and tried to make suggestions on how to use oxygen tugs to suggest possible ways to reinvent SLS
Well no one answered
Likewise I pondered horizontal launch.
No one answered
And tried to come up with cheap solutions for missions that could provide the juice to get Spacex to build their Merlin 2 on their own dime.
I guess my point is I seem to be here to want to help.
Tinker would enjoy me liking his ideas. He said once that my passion helped to motivate him. You may recall I told him to call James Cammron and get his lifter in an avatar movie.
Well maybe I need to tell you to outline a total space infrastructure plan the way YOU Mr. Steven Whitfield see it.
If I was running NASA I know I would consider giving you that task, do to your writing skills vast knoledge and most importantly common sense. You recall my line do something SMART lol?
Well somebody like you outlining a common sense Space infrastructure plan is a SMART idea.
Maybe that is why I’m here. To kick a few of you very intelligent guys in the ass lol. Tell you to do something SMART lol
Doesn’t take a rocket scientistt
George Worthington
PS I’ll think about your other questions more later I kind of just jumped in. Steve leave your answer in this post and I’ll get an email address if you want to talk more.
PSS As you know I’m an Old Robert Zubrin Mars guy. The Mars cuts are sad but as Marcel said once, we have to do each step at a time. Well Spacex is testing their Super Draco that will most likely land on the earth moon and Mars. If people like Elon and you do Smart things there is hope. Maybe Space needs a total reboot and Start again using your infrastructure plan as it’s guide.
You are right NASA needs to get away from congress for there to be any hope for them, but if they can’t reduce their costs in many many ways they are just in the way. I feel for people that work for NASA But tired of not getting my tax moneys worth out of them and have no idea how to help them. So just feel it’s time to do an end run with commercial. When I think of all the things that could been done in space if flight to Leo was cheap I know commercial is the only choice. We should be getting a large percent of our energy from Leo now whether it be solar and or nuclear
Lol just my thoughts Mr. Whitfield lol
And I’m not sorry for the long post either lol
Mr. Worthington,
I have received your letter regarding working with Space Transportation Infrastructure Unlimited. I consider it an honor to be considered for such an important project, and I thank you for your offer. I will review the requirements and reevaluate my current commitments over the next few days and respond to your offer before the end of this week.
I must say that your confidence in my knowledge and capabilities is somewhat overwhelming. I wish I was half as knowledgeable as you give me credit for. My one redeeming quality is that I always try to give my best to the team.
Thanks again,
Steve Whitfield
Steve
After The Spacex recoverable rocket post I was very bothered. I wanted to know for myself if they could really do it. So I thought about it for about a week and realized that all that was really needed to make recoverable rockets work was to have enough fuel. So how do you get enough fuel? You add a third stage. That was the reason for my vertical jets and all those ideas. I left some of the thoughts at the end of some threads so as not to bother news bloggers only to have some record of my thoughts.
Anyway from these thoughts I realized that recoverable rockets are very possible and there is no good reason that we don’t have recoverable rockets today. So when I’m told it’s very hard to do and all that I don’t buy it! It may take over coming some tech things. But nothing good engineers in the proper work environment can’t easily do.
So what does that mean!
It means SLS is a crock All the EELVs are an expensive joke. Falcon 9 and Heavy are only a good start.
When I hear others want to build programs based on EELVs and use NASA to plan the missions and infrastructure for our space future I pause and think this will never work.
So this is why I rant Spacex is our only hope.
You and I are talking about a real global infrastructure Plan Why?
Because given the nature of NASAs work environment they can’t even make a really good functional infrastructure plan.
Steve I just wanted you to understand why I think like I do. Also sometimes I get angry at NASA and rant some without thinking. I’m not against fixing NASA but I want a Space future that I know is possible soon! At the very least a workable plan that others like Spacex can execute. If they can’t do that, as an American tax payer that’s just scraping by to put my last kid through school then I want NASA to get the hell out of the way.
Hum idea 🙂
DTARS,
I sure don’t have all your answers George, but some of these issues are known.
1) “add a third stage.”
I know it seems logical at first, but it doesn’t work out. Adding a stage gives you more fuel volume, but it also gives you more mass to lift (the mass of the added stage and its fuel, plus and interstage, plus more rigid structure in the other stages to support the additional mass). This was tried by several countries/companies in past decades. When it didn’t work out well, they tried adding a fourth stage as well. No go. It’s a case of diminishing returns. Experience shows that either two stages or three stages is optimum, depending on where your payload is headed. (Soyuz comes in 2- and 3-stage versions, but stage 3 is never very large and its purpose is generally to add thrust to a payload that’s going past LEO, not to lift more mass or volume to LEO). This is largely empirical understanding, derived from testing, like NOoC often refers to.
2) Why do we have everybody using EELVs? Why have they not been using reusable LVs?
The simple answer is: they didn’t have to. It was not a requirement placed on the various programs, and making them reusable adds engineering time and development time and significant expense, and more risk, and always in a tight budget situation.
3) Is doing reusable (recoverable rockets) hard?
First a clarification: there’s little point in making something recoverable if it is not reusable, so I’m assuming that recoverable and reusable is what you’re referring to. Is it hard to do? I’m confident that it won’t be too hard to do once we know HOW to do it, which we don’t yet. It will not be a straight forward matter of applying theory and getting successful results. Like most major rocket design issues before it, it will be an iterative process, with much trial and error testing and many failures before success and sufficient understanding are achieved. And even then, some aspects of how to do it will be empirical, not theoretical because they’re either counterintuitive or just too complex to yield to existing theory and analysis. This is why cost and schedule estimates that the different companies have given, including SpaceX, to develop recoverable/reusable come under attack. It’s going to take considerable time and money to do all of the necessary design, trial and error testing (with redesigns in between tests), then the safety and reliability testing, and then the customer and regulatory qualification testing. And much of this is very hard to accurately predict ahead of time. Plus there is the unwarranted heat from the media every time a test “fails” (even though failures often give you the most/best new knowledge). So, is it easy? No, at least, not yet. Can we do it? Yes, but not quickly, easily or cheaply.
Just some more factors to chew on and take into consideration.
Steve
— in reply to DTARS —
I’ll described that bfj rocket plane here again. I would be grateful if you and/ maybe Paul would tell me what works and what doesn’t and why I’ll include some questions as I go along. I saw your posts with paul and he has a vaig description of it. Thanks again for your helpful critique There is nothing more frustrating than thinking through an idea and not knowing if it works or not
You are right there are ideas out there that have not been tried 🙂 I wish tinker was here!
Why are there so few comments ? Weekend I hope
Yawn. Efforts by NASA to assess opportunities and advantages of human space flight into cis-lunar space have been going on since the dismemberment of Constellation. There are concept studies being done right now for Lagrange point utilization (habitats, Orion) and HEOMD studies on using such locations for forward planning. This is old news.
Whats amusing about this website (thanks for associating it with Paul Spudis, as the website itself is anonymous) is that Paul has embraced cis-lunar space as he reluctantly pulls his boots out of lunar regolith. Don’t be fooled. This isn’t about cis-lunar space. This is about the Moon, and a politically acceptable way to talk about eventually going there.
Hallie; Maybe you’ve missed the point? NASA assessments have continued nonstop for 40+ years. They’ve been performed inside of NASA and outside. What have the assessments determined? We all want a base, or a colony on the moon, and we all want to get to Mars, eventually. We all want some kind of a heavy lift capability. We all want to be able to operate in space with humans and robots routinely.
What do we have to show for it?
Today we have none of these things. We had a capability to operate with humans but last year we threw it away. We had a heavy lift launcher and we threw that away. We are further from moon bases or Mars missions now than we were 10 years ago and further still than 40 years ago.
We have mindless “leaders” (it is more a label than a meaningful name) who have led us to nowhere.
The NASA ‘mind maps’ are nice. They express what we feel. So what?
Spudis has successfully laid it out in a single page; we start from where we are now. Instead of another giant leap, which we never get to, we take the systems we already have and extend their reach incrementally. We develop the systems to allow us to operate in cis-lunar space. Spudis, here, does not advocate going directly to the moon; he advocates doing some up front technology development to show the potential for ISRU. Makes a lot of sense.
This is a meaningful plan. This is a way we can choose to operate. Instead we are building an Orion that no one is quite certain how it would be used. It is not based on the ISS systems, elements or capabilities, all we have right now. I’d like to see the real data on SLS versus evolved Atlas, Delta or Dragon. I’d like to see the study on depots versus SLS.
Listen to what people like Chris Kraft are saying. We are liable to spend billions and years on SLS and then cancel it. We don’t know why we think it would b e maintainable and supportable and affordable when Saturn V certainly was not. At the same time we have people like Bolden saying that they went with the HEFT proposal because it seemed to make sense now and they did not look at longer term supportability. That was a mistake.
Spudis has a plan. Its not an assessment. It is based on logic and common sense and not on politics. Now it is time to get some people behind it and get it in front of the next President.
No, I think you missed the point.
This is a meaningful concept, but so was the NASA Decadal Planning Team results from about a dozen years ago. Those results were not originally public, but since then have been made so, and have been discussed in many forums. That work highlighted the importance of Lagrange point operations for the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere. It was a real plan. Not just a single page (which is hardly a “plan”). Cis-lunar space was clearly shown to be the portal to everywhere else. Spudis doesn’t refer to it.
That plan was unfortunately buried by Constellation (which was, at Spudis’ urging, ALL ABOUT THE MOON), and the creativity expressed in it is only now being recovered.
Again, I admire what Spudis has produced, but I admire it in the sense that it reflects a lot of good stuff NASA is now doing that is going on all around him, and that he doesn’t acknowledge or point to. Perhaps he isn’t even aware of it.
Maybe I wasn’t clear. My yawn wasn’t expressed about the importance of cis-lunar space. Cis-lunar space is profoundly important to our space future. My yawn was about an quasi-anonymous website, and its one-page “plan” that tries to present, as a novel idea, something that was being developed long before the author of that website latched onto it.
Like yea, and the problem is? Are you one of these people who seriously think that we are going to Mars anytime soon? Take a look at what part of SMD is about to be gutted and see what our current administration thinks about Mars.
I have no problem. In fact, I’m delighted that Spudis has achieved divine revelation about cis-lunar space. It’s just too bad he’s a bit of a late-comer. But what’s with your fixation on Mars? It would seem that the current administration has decided that we aren’t sending people to Mars for a VERY long time. Who is surprised to hear that?
Huh? Paul Spudis has been in the trenches on the subject of the Moon for over 20 years. His views have evolved a bit but he is still one of the very good guys. I do care about Mars as the ultimate destination, and as the second major outpost for humanity. My crystal ball is cloudy on the ultimate fate of humanity on the Moon but I do see it evolving as an industrial hub that will build the spaceships that open the solar system for development. All in all, incredibly exciting!
I agree Deniis, about the moon, Mars and Spudis. If we could get a plan like this one in gear, then we could be making trips beyond LEO in 5 years and building the Cislunar infrastructure. This is a plan that the next President and Congress need to adopt. A simple one-page statement of objectives is all that is needed (and about all the politicians are likely to pay attention to or absorb. If we stay on the Constellation-SLS slow boat, then it likely collapses in 5 years, the whole thing is cancelled once they figure out its too expensive and besides that largely redundant with commercial crew, and then we are right back to the beginning again.
Let me be more specific. Paul Spudis has been Mr. Moon for decades. All of a sudden, he’s Mr. Cis-Lunar Space. Mr. Moon saw the region between Earth and Moon as boring emptiness to travel through to get to the Moon. Now cis-lunar space (as in, free-space) appears to him as offering potential. That’s a wonderful realization. But it’s not a new idea.
But I agree, free-space between the Earth and the Moon probably offers very special advantages in reaching out to the Moon, and that’s very exciting.
This is basically what the OASIS team came up with. Paul Spudis *opposed* this vociferously. He deserves precisely zero credit for this.
The OASIS team ? Optical Active-passive Remote Sensing Instrument Suite (OASIS)?
Orbital Aggregation & Space Infrastructure Systems (OASIS) PowerPoint presentation
Orbital Aggregation & Space Infrastructure Systems (OASIS) PDF paper
Not identical but a similar approach. OASIS or the new Spudis plan make much more sense than the Constellation, throw it all away SLS and Orion.
The O’Keefe era NASA understood this. If you are interested you might also search for the Concept Exploration and Refinement (CE&R) contractor presentations that were part of the VSE but were all abandoned by the Griffin ESAS architecture that turned into the Constellation program.
Orbital Aggregation and Space Infrastructure System.
Was a major pre-VSE NASA effort to do space without a heavy lifter.
Both the basic concept and the limited details given seem very logical and quite doable to me. However, there have been many times over the last 30 years when this was true, and at those times the ability to pay for such a program was much better than it is now. And yet, no iteration of the many federal governments that the US has had during those 30 years came anywhere near agreeing to such a plan. Also, the brochure says, “America needs and Americans expect a vital, active and supportable space program that fundamentally contributes to national economic, scientific and security needs.” It’s hard to reconcile that claim with the growing indifference we see from Americans and their government. So, in all honesty. I have to ask: what’s changed that would lead anyone to propose a program of this scale at this time? Especially when Congress only has eyes for their FBR?
Steve
I do not read it to require a huge new effort commensurate, for instance, with Orion or SLS. The choice of photos Spudis used is a poor one because it shows basically all new vehicles and elements. The choice of an image that includes Orion implies that he vehicle does not operate in conjunction with ISS, or that the entire vehicle is thrown away with only Orion returning home with astronauts. Both of these are foolish concepts. It would have been better to show modules based on ISS, for example made from the now no longer needed MPLMs, or US Hab Module. You begin by developing a sortie vehicle that can fly separately from ISS with a crew for limited forays. Then you add a series of propulsion testbeds that allow you to range further out for longer missions. Then we could be scavenging things like the RMS from Shuttle in conjunction with the Cupola STA, upgraded for use. This can be done as a series of new, upgraded mods to the same vehicle. It doesn’t need to be done all at once. Once you get out away from ISS you need redundant systems including redundant pressure vessels, in case one become incapacitated. Its very logical, very low cost approach, very much in keeping with how NACA used to develop airplanes. Biggest issue is the US now lacks any launch capacity equivalent to Shuttle (including the ability to deliver, mate, etc.). You might be able o loft the modules with a Atlas, Delta or Dragon heavies, but even then you need to develop a major new spacecraft to deliver the elements to ISS. If you get ESA, JAXA or RSA to sign up, they can provide some or all of these capabilities but it is more and more becoming a foreign or at least international effort rather than a US effort. In such a case NASA is reverting to the situation of the last twenty years where, since NASA was simply an “operations” effort, no one in the US needed to be developing any new space systems; we just contracted everything to ESA, JAXA and RSA.
I like this! Its exactly what the NASA leadership need to take to Congress and the President and say ‘this is why we are going into space’. Its a sensible, logical and best path forward.
My concern is that the US Government will fail to grasp the importance of doing this, especially at a time of financial challenges. The reaction of some of the Republican candidates, as well as the US media to Gingrich’s ideas (accepting that he is probably being a bit ambitious in terms of timelines, if not scale and scope), is indicative that most Americans just don’t get it, when it comes to human space flight. Worse, it suggests that in the eyes of most Americans, and most US politicians, Space is no longer that important, and even falls into the category of being a nuisance they wish would just go away. So this bold vision and idea which would once again, restore US space leadership, and would open up many opportunities beyond what this vision delivers, I think is likely to fall on deaf ears, right at the moment.
Two things could happen that could change this situation, and make Spudis’ vision possible.
What is needed is a ‘Space shock’ – a Sputnik Moment. What is needed is for the US to be decisively, and visibly beaten in Space by a competing power. The American people react best and work together when challenged. This was demonstrated in the Second World War, and subsequently, in the Cold War, notably, in response to Soviet advances in Space. Another challenge to the presumption of US Space leadership and preeminence would have a similar galvanising effect on the national and political psyche. Obama and the Republican candidates can afford to take a relaxed attitude to Space because they still believe the US remains the leading space power. In some respects they are right, but in terms of human space flight, I think the position is being directly challenged, notably by China.
A Chinese lunar mission – even if it were only circumlunar – perhaps done shortly after 2020, and following on from the establishment of a Chinese space station – would constitute another Sputnik moment. If the US were still not flying humans in space on a significant scale, and the Chinese go to the Moon, such a development would I think constitute a passing of leadership to China. The big worry is that if the US has not advanced in terms of developing capability by then, it will not be able to catch up, particularly if the Chinese economy continues to grow at its current rate, compared to the sluggish US economic performance. So the US needs to make progress on developing new capability sooner, rather than wait for the Sputnik moment to happen.
Secondly, unless you have a political leadership that ‘gets it’ when it comes to Space, even the Sputnik moment won’t galvanise the US into action. That means the next generation of political leaders – both in Congress and the Executive – and most importantly, the interest groups and the PACs – need to be educated and stimulated into thinking boldly about the US future in Space. I think the current generation (which I include Romney, Paul, and Santorum, though not Gingrich), just don’t get Space, and neither does Obama, and nor do most people in Congress, and Space too often is about how it benefits a Senator’s or Congressional Representative’s district (think SLS), than it is about the US future as a global power for the next 100 years. You have to change mindsets and get people in power to embrace a new paradigm from what we have. That’s far tougher in some respects that coming up with a new plan for getting to the Moon.
So I think if we don’t change mindsets and perspectives, nothing will happen, even after the next Sputnik moment, which I think will be early in the next decade, and see the next human on the Moon being a Chinese Taikonaut, not an American astronaut. I suppose, to finish up, the question of ‘does it really matter who gets to the Moon next?’ is a legitimate question. You can take the perspective that so long as ‘a human’ gets back to the Moon, or goes to Mars, that is all that matters. But we live in a global system that is highly competitive, and inter-state competition is a reality. Can the US afford to accept being in second-place? I don’t know, and that’s up to the American people. But giving up on Space sends the US precisely to that spot.
I suppose the one big elephant in the room is what can commercial space do, if the US government dismisses the Spudis plan (as would be likely right now). I think Spudis should be taking this to Bigelow, to Space X, to Jeff Bezos, and others, and saying – ‘here’s what you guys need to be doing once you’ve demonstrated commercial access to LEO’. The more I consider the big questions about the US future in Space, the more I feel the future lies not with a stale, and stagnant government-led Space program, and instead, the commercial world takes over. The commercial space leaders ‘get it’. They have the vision and the will to move forward.
Malcolm Davis
Canberra, Australia
I agree with you on commercial before I got to your last paragraph, I was thinking usa commercial will beat china to the moon. Even if it just in a small way at first. We sure need to be figuring out ways to help commercial get moving. NASA looks helpless to me. The torch has past. Maybe get Romney or Obama to kill sls and Orion for an x prize like this. Maybe Newt was heard.