People are making too big a deal of Lori’s statement yesterday that we are not abandoning the moon. This is not any different than NASA has been saying since February, though the message has been badly garbled, and the president didn’t help with his flip and foolish comment about how “Buzz has already been there.”
Flexible Path always meant just that — flexible, and that flexibility included the ability, eventually, to go to the lunar surface, just not as a first destination.
Now, as it happens, I don’t think that it’s as expensive to build a lander as NASA and the Augustine panel seemed to think, particularly if you have a depot at L1 or L2, and we could have even retained the VSE plan of return to the moon first, but it doesn’t really matter now, because some future administration and Congress is going to make that decision. The important thing for now is to focus on developing the technology and building the hardware that’s necessary for all BEO missions, regardless of ultimate destination, while the opportunity exists. And one thing that doesn’t include is a heavy-lift vehicle, but at least until we can get a sensible Congress (perhaps next year, but there’s a lot of education to be done on that front), we will have to waste money on it. But as long as there’s enough left over to do the things that do need doing, and we don’t starve them for funds (Mike Griffin’s greatest sin), at least we won’t have to waste any more time.
In a perfect world, if you could fund both a HLV and exploration with current EELV’s, would you be in favor of a HLV program? Do you think we will ever need a HLV?
It would be interesting to see what the launch seasons would be like for destinations other than the moon for a fuel depot at L1 or L2 and perhaps how much fuel needed to supply the depot for those missions.
A better question would be what would you do if you could fund both an RLV and an HLV program. EELVs are not the goal, they’d be an interim crew/propellant launch solution and a long term one for “heavy lift”. And even then I’d be against an HLV program before we had a successful RLV. And a propellant transfer based exploration program is a better way of getting to an RLV than a big government RLV program. That after all was what the Shuttle was.
MPM, why do you think a propellant transfer based exploration program would lead to a RLV? Please, tell me more 🙂
Well, you’d have to use freely competing commercial launchers for the propellant too. And it doesn’t have to lead to RLV specifically, but to some form of cheap lift. I just happen to believe RLV is a very promising candidate.
The idea is that exploration requires enormous amounts of propellant and if that propellant is routed through the market that creates an enormous demand for launch services. With such enormous demand investment in cheaper launch vehicles becomes profitable. And since experts believe RLVs are technically possible with today’s technology you could count on markets to develop them.
I’ve always felt that if Columbus had waited for a HLV (Humungously Large Vessel) instead of using the ships he had to hand, 3 Easily Employed Little Vessels, then he’d be waiting on the dock to this day.
In fact trans atlantic exploration started out with costal vessels pressed into service as deep water craft. Gradually, as the need arose for bigger and bigger craft the ship builders applied themselves to the task of building them.
The exploration came first. The big vessels (Galleons) later.
The problem with space flight is that the engineers rule the shop.
For 40 years they’ve been telling us we can’t do anything unless they’re allowed to build their HLV.
For 40 years we’ve got nowhere.
Personally I’d go with Columbus now rather than risk waiting another 40 years.
I agree with your point Rand. There are lots of people thinking that Lori’s comments mean the Moon is back on, and if that keeps they enthusiastic for a couple of months or years, then that’s fine with me.
For myself, spending the next two years getting our technology in place is good for me, then we’ll have a good idea what we’re ready to tackle next – BEO, excursions around the Moon, an NEO… just not the Moon until we get our BEO capabilities in good shape.
MPM, why do you think a propellant transfer based exploration program would lead to a RLV? Please, tell me more 🙂
Propellant transfer would offer a market for really small unmanned RLVs. Arguably, these would be easier to develop than large crewed RLVs. For one thing, they could easily be launched from aircraft.
Good points MPM. A RLV might be one of the few ways to lower launch costs with our current rockets.
Once we have cheap lift, we will have the whole solar system. Until we have cheap lift, we will have Apollo on steroids at best and yet another MSFC-led failure at worst.