New NASA mission defies impossible

**Parihaka** · 04 Jul 05,, 01:58

New NASA mission defies impossible
By S.V. Dáte

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Sunday, July 03, 2005

CAPE CANAVERAL — By the end of 2010, the space shuttle Discovery and her sister ships, Atlantis and Endeavour, are to become museum pieces, pushed aside by a new, safer craft.

Gone will be the days of worrying about foam coming off the external tank or flames shooting through booster joints, the malfunctions that have destroyed two of NASA's shuttles. The new ship will specifically avoid design flaws that allowed such glitches to turn into fatal catastrophes.

On top of all that, the new Crew Exploration Vehicle will take humans back to the moon and, someday, onward to Mars.

There is only one problem: A mere five years out — that is a pittance, by the historical standards of spacecraft design — NASA still has no idea what this replacement ship will look like, how it will work or whether it can even be ready in time.

What's more, rather than an Apollo-style budget, this ship — it will be NASA's first new manned vehicle in a quarter century — is to be built almost within the existing NASA budget, by scrimping and squeezing other programs.

"You can't do it," U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said flatly. "If you were really serious about it, you'd have a budget that would be ramping up."

But NASA's new administrator, Michael Griffin, insists he is serious and is fully committed to the Vision for Space Exploration President Bush announced in January 2004.

And the commander of the Discovery mission that is to launch July 13 said the first step toward NASA'S new long-term goal is its "Return to Flight" mission, the first shuttle launch since Columbia was destroyed and its seven astronauts killed as it returned to Earth Feb. 1, 2003. "To me, this is the most exciting dream that I could have," Eileen Collins said during recent pre-flight interviews at Johnson Space Center in Houston. "That is, someday, hopefully in my lifetime, seeing people walk on Mars. And I would hope that our country has not lost the motivation and the desire to explore."

Public vision, private doubts

Publicly, NASA and its workforce are fully behind "The Vision," as it's called in the space community. Finally, the nation has as its stated policy the goal of planetary exploration, something true-believers in space flight have always dreamed of.

But privately there are more than a few doubts. Although going to the moon and Mars sounds great, neither the White House nor Congress has talked about putting up the many billions of dollars such a grand plan probably will require.

President Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, proposed the Space Exploration Initiative shortly after taking office in 1989. It, too, was a return to the moon, followed by manned missions to Mars. But the program rapidly became too expensive, at hundreds of billions of dollars, and faded quietly away.

And during the past two decades, the nation's track record with attempts to replace the space shuttle likewise has not been promising. The National Aerospace Plane, the single-stage-to-orbit Delta Clipper, the X-33 VentureStar, the X-38 Assured Crew Return Vehicle — all were to have been vehicles to augment or supplant the space shuttle. All were scrapped before the first full-size test articles could be built.

Engineers and technicians in Brevard County worry what could happen if the new project were canceled similarly while the shuttle program has wound down on schedule. There would be no manned rockets to launch, meaning a radical loss of jobs and a damper on the entire Space Coast economy, affecting everything from paychecks to property values.

Nelson, who represented Brevard as a U.S. House member and was one of two congressmen to ride the shuttle as passengers in the 1980s, also worries about the foreign policy implications.

"The geopolitics could be Russia and China in cahoots by 2012," he said, adding that the United States cannot allow itself to be left without a means of putting astronauts into orbit, even for a short time.

Defenders of The Vision, however, argue that it differs fundamentally from its canceled predecessors, all of which required significant technological advancements to even design the ship. Engineers joked that the requirements for a lightweight yet hypersonic machine needed the discovery of a new construction metal: "unobtainium."

In contrast, the Crew Exploration Vehicle is to use existing technologies as a way to keep costs down and schedules on track.

"We're not going to build a vehicle as complex as the shuttle," said John Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University and a member of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.

It is no accident that, 36 years after the first moon landing, NASA continues to look back to earth's closest celestial neighbor in search of a mission to recapture its former glory.

Having Americans actually walk and plant the flag on another world was a powerful, and understandable, accomplishment.

Building a space station that circles 200 miles overhead, fixing satellites, growing perfect crystals in weightlessness — none of it has conjured the drama or interest of the lunar landings.

Perhaps the phrase that best captured the can-do spirit of Apollo was flight director Gene Kranz's: "Failure is not an option." Implicit in it was the idea that, if NASA put its collective mind to a task, it was certain to succeed. Anything was possible.

But equally important to NASA's success during Apollo was the unofficial slogan from those years, particularly in the early and mid-1960s, when the spacecraft and its massive Saturn V booster were being designed: "Money is no object."

Those were the years when the space race was part of the Cold War between America and the Soviet Union. The need for strategic control of space, as well as the intangibles of national pride, made for NASA budgets that swelled to historic levels.

Inflated to today's dollars, the total price tag for the Gemini and Apollo missions topped a quarter trillion dollars. For the three peak Apollo spending years, NASA's budgets exceeded $30 billion annually in today's dollars, twice the agency's current and recent budgets.

The contrast, though, is even more stark. Today's NASA budgets are split about evenly between space flight and other programs. Apollo-era NASA budgets were spent overwhelmingly on space flight, meaning the actual ratio is more like 4-1.

The approach this time is radically different, more like: How can we get to the moon and beyond with the money we've got?

Hence the reason to shut down the shuttle in 2010: "The only way to finance the future program is to stop the current program," Logsdon said.

Timelines raise questions

One of Griffin's first tasks when he took command of NASA in April was to speed up development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle. Former administrator Sean O'Keefe had set a timetable to start flying the CEV in 2014. Griffin wants to make that 2010. NASA has contracted with two aerospace companies to come up with proposals for the new ship: Lockheed Martin and a consortium of Northrup Grumman and Boeing. Flight testing is to start by 2008.

Despite the faster timeline, though, Griffin told reporters at the Paris Air Show in June that he couldn't promise to eliminate the gap between shuttle and CEV. "I cannot guarantee when the CEV will be deployed because that will be a budget-driven process," Griffin said, according to the trade publication Aviation Week & Space Technology. "It will be deployed as soon after the shuttle retirement as we can make it. Whether that is in 2010 or 2011 or whatever — as soon as possible after the shuttle retirement as we can do so."

That kind of talk doesn't thrill Nelson, who has always fought for larger NASA budgets than either presidents or his colleagues in Congress have been willing to provide. Still, he said he feels better that Griffin, an aerospace engineer with six advanced degrees, is in charge of things rather than O'Keefe, who had an accounting background.

"Now we've got somebody who understands space, rather than just being a budget guy. I'm a lot more confident," he said, adding that Congress still will have to find additional money for the program in the coming years. "This is a step-by-step process."

I still think that revisiting the Apollo command module is the way to go. The technology is proven, and can be done at a fraction of the cost of the shuttles.

**highsea** · 04 Jul 05,, 02:59

Originally Posted by parihaka

I still think that revisiting the Apollo command module is the way to go. The technology is proven, and can be done at a fraction of the cost of the shuttles.

The technology is proven, but you can't replicate it in today's environment, nor do we want to. If you think think the shuttle is risky...Apollo was 100 times riskier, and the Apollo module is way to small to be usefull. We need a freight hauler, and it ain't the Saturn V. All of the Apollo technology was one-use only. That won't work today- it's just not practical to throw away everything each time, and still plan for 500-1000 missions.

The CEV will use existing shuttle tech, which is a helll of a lot better than the Saturn rockets. We can stack the boosters. IIRC, we're looking at up to five stages now, but 2010 is totally unrealistic- simply not do-able with the budgets as they are, in the timeframe allowed. Everyone knows it's not going to happen, and Congress is already squawking to extend the shuttle past 2010. What really sucks is we can build a new system in five years if the Congress would just fund the damn thing. It's not easy, but it's within our capability.

Fact is, we have been sitting on our collective asses for the last 20 years when it comes to the space program. First Bush Sr., then Clinton, now Bush Jr. Talk doesn't build space programs, and now we are paying the price. The shuttles are all beyond their design life, and until we get a replacement, it's going to be spit and bailing wire. We should have been seriously funding a replacement 10 years ago. Ever get on a 25 year old DC-10 at the airport? That's what the shuttles are like today.

Unless we commit to some serious dineros, we might as well hand the keys to the ISS to Russia, since they're the ones carrying the ball anyway. It sucks, but it's true.

There's three things you need to do to have a successful space program. First, you need to fund it. Second, you need to get the right people on the job. Third, you need to get the wrong people off the job. Right now, we are batting .000.

**Parihaka** · 04 Jul 05,, 03:30

Yeh, maybe i should clarify a bit. To me it seems pointless to have a shuttle. If you have payload, you lift it into space once and leave it there, or assemble it in space. The human cargo goes up in the smallest possible capsule and returns the same way, both America and Russia have proven the capsule system over many years and it's the most economic way of doing it. A true spaceship should be just that, a space ship, not some odd hybrid that's supposed to be both a spaceship and an aeroplane. My mention of the command module is that it is easy and cheap to get the astronauts into and out of space, and with todays technologies can be far safer than the Apollo versions.

**Hk40** · 17 Jul 05,, 15:01

Originally Posted by parihaka

I still think that revisiting the Apollo command module is the way to go. The technology is proven, and can be done at a fraction of the cost of the shuttles.

In your lengthy thesis you forget to mention (addresses the core of your argument) that all of the 'prime contractor's ahve already been given a deadline to submit proposals that show and describe in detail 'how they plan on proceeding'. They've submited their proposals and this too has been widely covered in the press (Aviation Week & Space Technology) for over a year now. The problem of why NASA want's to retire the SS Fleet is more of because of the incredible army of technicians and ground personnel to launch, recover, and to maintain this fleet. And has lees to do with technology. The technology part of it is a no-brainer. It's the shere size in resources it takes in personnel.
Basically this makes your entire thesis moot. Sorry.

**Hk40** · 17 Jul 05,, 15:10

If nothing else the entire method that NASA uses in project design shows how short sighted they are. Sure you need the SS (Space Shuttle) to truck modules and equipment into Earth Orbit to build the ISS. NASA should've visioned that once the ISS is in place ( I know its not yet complete) NASA should've transitioned it's view on Space Flight. A large hangar module could've been boosted and placed somewhere along the ISS wand wired up for in-space spacecraft design or assembly. This would've been great for building the X-33. What doomed the X-33 was the large tank that was designed out of composite matterials to save weight. However, the stresses (compacting and enlarging) were too much and cracks were created by the forces. The X-33 could've been built in space and flown there without having to fly back to Earth. Another vehicle or 'pod' should've been developed for Earth entry.

**Garry** · 17 Jul 05,, 17:32

Originally Posted by parihaka

Yeh, maybe i should clarify a bit. To me it seems pointless to have a shuttle. If you have payload, you lift it into space once and leave it there, or assemble it in space. The human cargo goes up in the smallest possible capsule and returns the same way, both America and Russia have proven the capsule system over many years and it's the most economic way of doing it. A true spaceship should be just that, a space ship, not some odd hybrid that's supposed to be both a spaceship and an aeroplane. My mention of the command module is that it is easy and cheap to get the astronauts into and out of space, and with todays technologies can be far safer than the Apollo versions.

I don't agree to that. I recently spoke with ex-managers (they were fired recently in corporate war

of RKK Energya, a company that is responsible for all Russian manned flight and developing The Clipper.

They explained to me that Shutle was a great and brilliant idea but could not be cheapelly implemented with the technologies and goals of NASA in 1970-es. The new Clipper program is basically transformation of the Soyuz spacecraft into small reusable shutle to be launched with almost same launch vehicle. Because the new Clipper is in many ways a buildup on 40-years old Soyuz its developement is 3 times cheaper than installing testing equipement on Shuttle wings..... Estimated cost is around $350-380mln.... even if program would see significant cost overrun it would make less than a billion. You may find interesting details here....

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html

The launch vehicle was the reason why the guys get fired. Longly promissed Onega (a modernized Soyuz launch vehicle) is far from reality and they decided to switch to Zenith, a Ukrainian piece of former Soviet Space program.... BIG MISTAKE.... How could policitians allow them to use Ukrainian launch vehicle on future Russian spacecraft!!!! It would put all future Russian manned programs into deep exposure to politically very unstable Ukraine....

Hence the program will be delayed now by at least 3 years.... Instead of promissed 2011 it will be full scale operation only in 2014 - the year when US is back to the space :-)

PS. Do you know another reason why Clipper is so cheaper than istalling testing equipement on Shuttle? That is because most of engineers at RKK Energiya are earning around $300 a month!!! While visiting the company I was accompanied by 50-year old guy the head of the devision for orientation systems, a fammed matematician. When I asked how much do you earn he told 10.700 a month.... When I was amazed that he earns that much he clarified Rubles!!! (Exchange rate is around 28.50 rubles per dollar)...... Until this people are alife Russia can do it cheap..... Unfortunatelly no young faces you can see at RKK Energiya as taxi cab driver in Moscow earns much more!!!

**Hk40** · 17 Jul 05,, 18:54

Originally Posted by Garry

PS. Do you know another reason why Clipper is so cheaper than istalling testing equipement on Shuttle? That is because most of engineers at RKK Energiya are earning around $300 a month!!! While visiting the company I was accompanied by 50-year old guy the head of the devision for orientation systems, a fammed matematician. When I asked how much do you earn he told 10.700 a month.... When I was amazed that he earns that much he clarified Rubles!!! (Exchange rate is around 28.50 rubles per dollar)...... Until this people are alife Russia can do it cheap..... Unfortunatelly no young faces you can see at RKK Energiya as taxi cab driver in Moscow earns much more!!!

Garry - No Doubt. Your last point is the core issue that will soon be felt all over the World. Where I work we have much discussions about this topic. How can "entertainment" celeberties be making Million$ (including sports atheletes) while our teachers, best thinkers (Scientist) are hobbled away constrained due to ever tighten budgets. It's hard to make theWorld a better place under such conditions. Another example is China. It would just be a matter of time when China would milk the fuits of Research and Development and better schools and apply those minds to manual labour apparateus and open lands to become a major player in space. Now look at them. There time has come and the sun is setting on the USA. With our high cost (wages) it's only a matter of time when we will need to go looking for a different a pradigm-shift in the way we do things.
~ Hk40 ~

**Garry** · 18 Jul 05,, 13:28

Originally Posted by Hk40

Garry - No Doubt. Your last point is the core issue that will soon be felt all over the World. Where I work we have much discussions about this topic. How can "entertainment" celeberties be making Million$ (including sports atheletes) while our teachers, best thinkers (Scientist) are hobbled away constrained due to ever tighten budgets. It's hard to make theWorld a better place under such conditions. Another example is China. It would just be a matter of time when China would milk the fuits of Research and Development and better schools and apply those minds to manual labour apparateus and open lands to become a major player in space. Now look at them. There time has come and the sun is setting on the USA. With our high cost (wages) it's only a matter of time when we will need to go looking for a different a pradigm-shift in the way we do things.
~ Hk40 ~

Hi HK40. I agree with you but only about China and India....

unfortunately Space industry is not sustainable in Russia - taxi driver in Moscow earns $500 => no more engineers to replace old guys.

.... the guy after I was surprised with his salary told that most of his subordinates earn by training richer kids to pass math tests to colleagues... and some can earn much more with that. When I asked - why you are still here he replied - "It is not even about Russia and patriotism... it would be so stupid if I leave to drive cab and next generation would lose all the handful experience I have.... while being in China I enjoyed passing my knowledge to young Chinese. I am a patriot of Space not only my country. If it is not needed in Russia let Chinese use it, but no knowledge should be gone with me." (RKK Energiya has passed a lot of knowledge to Chinese first manned flight for few million dollars

Unfortunately very few Russian brains want to be working in science or space... and you can find really few young fanatics like this guy there. The average age of workers is more than 45 years...

OK. Russia is not threat to US. But China and India are closing gap very fast. US is really very very inefficient in terms of resources and results. NASA 2005 budget is $16bn.... Russian 2005 budget is $800mln.... one Shuttle launch = $200mln of which 20mln testing after landing! One Soyuz launch = $25mln... Buran launch would cost now $70mln (assembled shuttle with launch rocket is semi-ready for launch and still stored). A large part of NASA budget is being eaten with its administration. NASA has inherited the inefficiency since the moon program times. If you compare what NASA has spend on Moon it would be more than $1trln in current prices.... many ten times more than USSR has planned with its twice longer program...

This inefficiency standards were passed on to overall Aerospace industry. Everything US is making costs incredibly expensive look how much money has been poured to Stealth…. F-117 and B-2 cost programs cost more than USSR spent on its entire Aerospace for many years during cold war…. I don’t speak about Raptor and F-35…. Under current Government financing US Aerospace industry has lost a lot of its R&D efficiency…. Look many or almost all programs are traditionally cost overrun by around 30% and delayed by at least a year….. I wonder how much more it could cost to US Aerospace industry to make A-380 than it cost to Airbus?

China and India are now spending on space twice more than Russia (around $1.5-2bn) but they make quantum leaps with these funds… partially because following is always cheaper. And in both economies cheap R&D and designing is quite sustainable…. Therefore US must do something to fight this increadible inefficiency of its Aerospace industry’s R&D…. this sacred caw was protected with classified fence for far too long… hiding how the funds were actually spend and what results were generated. The closed domestic competition encouraged companies understating a program cost and period initially at bidding process and then protracting periods and increasing budgets once a bid has been approved.

Both Chinese and Indians are lacking only experience in R&D… this comes with time…. So if US spending on Aerospace does not reform itself (that I doubt to happen) it may as well lose its leadership despite enormous funds spend on space.

**Garry** · 18 Jul 05,, 14:09

back to Shuttle issue. Nobody at RKK Energiya even doubts the revolutionary role of Shuttles in technology development.... these are:

1) managed descending
2) increased mobility at orbit
3) increadible ability to bring satelites back
4) reusable acceleration tanks, which are thrown down at stage 2

However they believe that the gigantic load of Shuttle was too excessive and unnessesary at its time.... there are simply not much applications for this costly capability. And the most important was complexity of the vehicle. RKK Energiya engineers know it as they created Buran which is quite similar to Shuttles but a bit heavier. For example they told that while checking Soyuz before launch you needed few thousand reports from different testing sensors. For Buran it required hundred of thousands reports!!! If Soyuz takes just 2 weeks to prepare for launch once spacecraft and rocket are available, it takes 6 weeks for Buran and 2 month with Shuttle.

And ofcause the cost of launch is just very high. Even US can not have many launches if they cost $200mln, not considering depreciation of Shuttle resource....

That is why the Clipper idea came, it can bring the cost down from $25mln per each Soyuz... Indeed it is just like good old soyuz but can decend like small shuttle. In addition to that it carries 6 crew bringing cost per crew member below $4mln compared to $8mln at Soyuz and $29-30mln with Shuttles!!! So if you take two tourists at $20mln each to ISS with Clipper then they would pay your flight plustsome surplus of more than $15mln - quite a lot for Russian space whose budget is just $800mln :-)

What remained is the Russian cocept of splitting cargo and manned spacecrafts... Clipper's modification for Cargo is being considered as well.

Actually I have seen Clipper's dynamic model - the full scale and functional version which is to be blown through aerodynamic tube and later crashed to check resistance characteristics.... this model will be displayed in August in Moscow.

**Hk40** · 19 Jul 05,, 17:01

Garry - I agree with your thesis. Yes we in the US especially in our Space Program are ineffiecient creating huge cost overruns.
It was also interesting reading you report on the current fiscal situation in Russia and how it relates to the man on the street. We get so many different stories it's hard to tell what is really happening in Russia in relation to the everyday person.
~ Hk40 ~

**Garry** · 28 Jul 05,, 18:12

May be there is something good in that they have no more rain of money like in good old times. The Russian space companies started looking for some commercial side of the manned space flights....

Today in the newspaper I read the interview with the newly appointed head of the RKK Energiya. They are looking for tourists who wish to pay $100mln for a trip to moon and few circles around it and back. This time it wouldn't be a Clipper but good old Soyuz as in 1960-es....

From what I talked with ex-people. They explained that probably it will cost more than $100mln. They believe that $100mln would be a mere cost of such a trip and company would need to earn some profit. Moreover the program was considered for 2 persons (standard Soyuz carries 3) and therefore second passenger/causmanaut may be a profit......

____________________

Russian rocket maker offers rides around the moon for $100 million

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
Associated Press Writer
311 words
28 July 2005
15:54
Associated Press Newswires
English
(c) 2005. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.

MOSCOW (AP) - A Russian rocket manufacturer is proposing sending space tourists on a ride around the moon for $100 million, and a top official of the nation's space agency said the project could be viable.

Nikolai Moiseyev, deputy head of the Russian Federal Space Agency, said the agency had just started considering the proposal by the RKK Energia company.

The trip around the moon would include a weeklong stay aboard the international space station, Energia chief Nikolai Sevastyanov said Wednesday. The project would involve reliable Soyuz booster rockets that have been the mainstay of the Soviet and Russian space program since the 1960s.

"The project is absolutely realistic and we have come close to implementing it," Sevastyanov said, according to the RIA Novosti news agency.

The cash-strapped Russian space program has sought to supplement scarce government funding with revenues from space tourism. California businessman Dennis Tito paid the Russian space agency about $20 million for a weeklong trip to the international space station in 2001, and South African Mark Shuttleworth followed suit the a year later.

A millionaire U.S. scientist, Gregory Olsen, has signed a deal with the Russian space agency to fly to the orbiting station as early as October, when the next Soyuz mission is scheduled to bring supplies and a new crew to the station.

Sevastyanov said sending space tourists to fly around the moon could help generate interest in its exploration, including tapping helium-3 as an energy source to satisfy energy demands back on Earth.

Scientists believe the moon's supply of helium-3 could be used in futuristic fusion reactors on Earth that would generate electricity without producing nuclear waste. Such fusion technology could also power rockets for deep space travel in the future.

**Parihaka** · 02 Aug 05,, 09:28

From Orlando Sentinel
EXCLUSIVE REPORT
NASA outlines plans for moon and Mars

36 years after Apollo 11, the agency proposes new spacecraft and a lunar base to prepare for the next giant leap -- to the Red Planet.
By Michael Cabbage
Sentinel Space Editor

Posted July 31, 2005

NASA's new road map for the human exploration of space would land four astronauts on the moon by 2018 as the first step toward an eventual six-person voyage to Mars.

TO THE MOON
Pioneers would build a lunar outpost, most likely at the south pole, with living quarters, power plants and communication systems. Expeditions would scavenge the desolate landscape for precious supplies such as fuel and water.

Astronauts would roam the surface in high-tech dune buggies to search for answers to scientific riddles that continue to baffle researchers. The crews would blast off aboard rockets derived from the space-shuttle fleet and parachute back to Earth in capsules similar to those used during the Apollo program.

The assault on the moon would be a precursor to 500-day expeditions on Mars, an alien world more than 35 million miles away that some scientists suspect could hold evidence of extraterrestrial life.

Those and other specifics of NASA's ambitious plans for a new era of human space travel are outlined in a set of internal briefing charts on the agency's recent Exploration Systems Architecture Study. A copy of those briefings, parts of which are scheduled to be made public next month, was obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.

Some things are subject to change, and important decisions have yet to be made. But the study is the first detailed description of how NASA intends to accomplish the goals announced by President Bush in January 2004 of returning astronauts to the moon by 2020 to prepare for later missions to Mars.

J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE/THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
In a speech Jan. 14, 2004, at NASA's headquarters in Washington, President Bush announces his ambition to build a base on the moon and eventually send astronauts to Mars. A new study estimates the program will cost about $217 billion through 2025.
So far, the program has considerable support from the White House and Congress, but to become a reality, it will have to withstand the test of time. The study estimates the program will cost about $217 billion through 2025. NASA's exploration office is projected to receive about the same amount of money during that period.

To stay within the budget, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has spent much of his first three months on the job refocusing the agency and its resources on preparing for a return to the moon.

"I hope that you will see as we bring it forward," Griffin told Congress on June 28, "a logical, clean, simple, straightforward approach."

Griffin's influence already has been felt. The current study is the result of a 60-day review of previous exploration plans. It contains a number of important changes. Among them:

A version of the same ship designed to carry astronauts to the moon first would ferry crews to the international space station. The gap between the initial manned launches of that vehicle in 2011 and the shuttle's planned retirement in 2010 was shortened from four years to one. And a new fleet of rockets to support human missions is expected to be cheaper and safer by building on existing parts of the shuttle.

NASA managers have declined to be interviewed about the plan until its public release. One, however, said privately that Griffin's involvement has made a huge difference.

"We [NASA] can no longer take a business-as-usual approach, and Mike Griffin clearly understands that," the manager said. "We have to be more financially and technically creative to do the things we need to do."

Doing the heavy lifting

All of the hardware needed for the Apollo moon landings from 1969 to 1972 reached orbit with a single launch of the giant Saturn 5 rocket. But because Saturn 5 production ended more than 30 years ago, NASA has been looking for new boosters powerful enough to lift the heavy loads required for lunar missions.

Engineers debated for months whether to develop a heavy-lift rocket from parts of the shuttle or rely on improved versions of the Atlas and Delta boosters used by the Air Force to launch satellites. According to the study, they chose the shuttle-derived option because of lower cost and superior lifting ability.

"[It's the] only viable solution given [the] time frame and current market," the study noted.

The hardware and cargo required for lunar missions would lift off aboard a 40-story colossus built around the shuttle's external fuel tank. This unmanned booster would be developed between 2010 and 2018.

Five of the shuttle's main engines and larger versions of its twin booster rockets would power the launcher. Some versions would be capable of carrying a hefty 125 tons into Earth orbit, making it almost the equal of the Saturn 5. The projected price tag of $540 million per launch is comparable to the cost of a shuttle flight.

The giant booster would have a powerful new upper stage. This so-called Earth Departure Stage would be used to hurl spacecraft toward the moon. Also designed from the shuttle's fuel tank, it would be equipped with an upgraded pair of the same engines used on the Saturn 5's upper stages.

NASA has decided to launch future astronauts on moon and space-station missions aboard a separate rocket derived from another piece of shuttle hardware.

Starting in June 2011, astronauts would lift off to the station atop a modified version of the shuttle's pencil-shaped solid-rocket booster. The rocket's new second stage would be powered by one of the shuttle's main engines.

The $280 million missions would free NASA from having to depend solely on the Russians for station flights after the shuttle's retirement. The same rocket later would be used to launch crews into low Earth orbit to begin trips to the moon. NASA estimates the launcher would be nine times safer than the shuttle.

"We have ways to construct such vehicles using shuttle solid-rocket motors and external tanks and shuttle main engines," Griffin said of the new boosters Friday. "We think the existing components offer us huge cost advantages as opposed to starting from a clean sheet of paper, and that's what I've proposed doing."

New spacecraft are being designed to ride atop the new rockets.

Engineers already are developing a cone-shaped Crew Exploration Vehicle, or CEV. Initial versions of the CEV would launch aboard the modified shuttle booster rocket and carry three-person crews to the space station a couple of times per year.

The ships also could be used to transport cargo to the outpost. Larger, future versions of the capsule would take four people to the moon and six-person crews to Mars.

Last month, NASA awarded a pair of $28 million contracts to Lockheed Martin and a Northrop Grumman-Boeing team to come up with designs for the new ship. The agency will select one of the two proposals in March.

NASA managers plan to review the CEV's engineering design in July 2006 with the goal of having the spacecraft ready for a manned launch to the station in 2011. Having the CEV available as soon as possible could become critical if the White House rethinks the shuttle's 2010 retirement date because of continuing problems with hazardous launch debris during shuttle Discovery's liftoff Tuesday.

The CEV will be strikingly similar to the Apollo command module but larger. Astronauts on future lunar flights will have more than twice the room.

In another throwback to Apollo, the 12-ton capsule would be mated to a service module that provides power and propulsion during the journey to and from the moon. Crews returning home in the CEV would jettison the service module before making a fiery plunge through Earth's atmosphere and parachuting to the ground.

The capsule then would thump down on land as Russian missions did instead of splashing down in the Pacific Ocean as Apollo flights did.

NASA already has identified three possible landing sites in the Western United States: Edwards Air Force Base in Southern California's Mojave Desert, the Carson Flats area of Nevada and near Moses Lake in eastern Washington.

The ship's flight path would carry it over the Pacific Ocean, minimizing the risk to people below if something went wrong. If necessary, the capsule would be capable of making a water landing. The CEV will have an expendable heat shield, and versions that go to the space station could be reused for up to 10 missions.

In addition to the CEV, engineers have begun looking at designs for the lander that will carry astronauts from lunar orbit to the moon's surface and back. Development is scheduled to accelerate in 2010, with a spacecraft ready for flight by 2018.

The lander's design follows the same general concept as Apollo's. It has two basic parts. The bottom descent stage is a four-legged platform with rocket engines that lower the craft to the moon's surface. A detachable upper ascent stage serves as a crew compartment and launches the astronauts back to lunar orbit when their mission is complete.

The ascent stage's engines are designed to burn liquid-methane propellant. Small amounts of methane are thought to be present in Mars' atmosphere, creating the possibility that astronauts might be able to produce their own rocket fuel instead of carrying it with them.

The lander would remain on the lunar surface for about a week. An airlock would allow a crew of four astronauts to leave the ship for moonwalks. The lander held only two astronauts during the Apollo missions.

The craft is designed to carry up to 23 tons of cargo and could be used to rotate crews living at a lunar base.

"We can gain quite a bit of science," said David Black, an astrophysicist and head of a research association that oversees the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston. "One of the things we can get is a better handle on the origin of the moon and how it relates to Earth."

Getting to the moon

One of the great technical challenges of the early 1960s was how to design the Apollo moon landings. Engineers debated a number of ideas.

Some suggested a direct approach in which parts of a massive Saturn 8 or Nova rocket would launch from Earth, fly to the moon, land there, blast off again and return to Earth. The size of the rocket needed and the fuel required made the idea impractical.

Another approach, initially favored by rocket visionary Wernher von Braun, was called Earth Orbit Rendezvous. This method proposed launching several smaller rockets carrying the hardware needed for a lunar mission.

The pieces would be assembled in Earth orbit, and then the larger spacecraft would travel to the moon and back. This plan was abandoned in 1962 largely because of unknowns about putting together a rocket in space.

Apollo engineers ultimately decided on a third approach known as Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. A single Saturn 5 booster launched all of the spacecraft needed for the mission. After the systems were checked out in Earth orbit, the rocket's third stage restarted to propel the mission to the moon.

Next, the Apollo command module and service module separated and docked with a lunar lander housed inside the third stage. Once in orbit around the moon, two astronauts piloted the lander to the surface. An ascent stage atop the lander launched back to lunar orbit, where it mated with the command module for the astronauts' return to Earth.

In recent months, NASA engineers have been debating some of the same issues their predecessors faced four decades ago. The result is a new blueprint similar to Apollo's but with features of von Braun's early Earth Orbit Rendezvous approach.
Future lunar missions would launch aboard two separate rockets. The giant new 40-story booster would carry the lunar lander into space atop the fuel-filled Earth Departure Stage. Next, the CEV and service module would lift off aboard the smaller, modified shuttle booster.
Once in low Earth orbit, the CEV would dock with the lunar lander. From there, the mission would be virtually identical to Apollo's. The Earth Departure Stage would rocket the spacecraft toward lunar orbit. Four astronauts would descend to the surface aboard the lander. A week or so later, they would lift off from the moon and dock with the CEV, which would carry them back to Earth.

"You have to take the long view and not get yourself into a situation like before where we go to the moon and aren't positioned to build on it," astrophysicist Black said. "This approach makes a lot of sense if you are going on to Mars."

Current plans call for a minimum of two lunar missions per year beginning in 2018.

Astronauts would conduct long-term research in several scientific disciplines, including astrobiology, geology, astronomy and physics. Some of the studies will gauge how the human body responds over time to weaker gravity, increased solar radiation and other conditions found away from Earth.

Crews also would try to take advantage of any available resources on the moon and live off the land. The goal is to eventually develop a lunar base.
A likely location for an outpost is near Shackleton Crater at the moon's south pole, where scientists suspect there are relatively high levels of hydrogen, a potential fuel source, and the possibility of water ice. Missions would gradually build power, communication and navigation systems, and a place to live. Rovers more advanced than those during Apollo would be used to explore the surface.

Other high-priority sites for exploration include the north pole, three locations on the dark side of the moon and the Sea of Tranquillity, where Apollo 11 made the first manned lunar landing in 1969.

One of NASA's main reasons for returning astronauts to the moon and living there is to master the technologies and gain the experience needed for future human voyages to Mars. Detailed development of those expeditions is expected to begin about 2020, but the broad outlines already are starting to take shape.

Four or five launches with the giant heavy-lift boosters would carry into orbit the mission's spacecraft and hardware. Before the six-person crew lifts off, however, an outpost with living quarters, power, communications and a return ship would land on the Martian surface by remote control.

The astronauts' trip would take about six months each way. Once on Mars, the crew would spend 500 days exploring large areas of the surface and doing research, including the search for evidence of past or present life. Astronauts would attempt to tap the Martian environment for oxygen and water, two essential supplies, and liquid oxygen and methane, the two propellants that will power the landing craft.

Risks and challenges await

NASA's ambitious plan faces several major technical and political challenges.

One is keeping astronauts healthy. For years, scientists have been concerned about exposure to harmful solar radiation in space, where Earth's atmosphere no longer provides a shield.

According to the study, astronauts who spend long periods of time in low Earth orbit have a 3 percent additional risk of contracting lethal cancer during their lifetime. Currently, there are no radiation guidelines for missions beyond Earth's orbit, although the National Council on Radiation Protection is developing some.

A massive solar storm in August 1972 was the largest radiation event ever recorded. Engineers are trying to develop CEV shielding to offer protection from a storm four times that strong. NASA estimates that an aluminum vehicle with moderate shielding would limit the chance of an astronaut getting sick from such an event to 2.9 percent, with a tiny 0.02 percent chance of death.

The space agency assesses the lunar missions' overall risks as relatively small, mainly because of the use of proven systems and technology.

NASA estimates the chance of a failure derailing a mission is less than 6.3 percent, with the chance of the crew dying at 1.3 percent. In contrast, a May 1962 risk analysis before the Apollo program concluded the chance of losing astronauts during the first attempt to land on the moon was 22 percent.

Political challenges here on Earth pose a threat of a different sort. The program's cost already has stirred debate.

The estimated $217 billion price tag is only $7 billion more than the projected budget for NASA's exploration office during the next 20 years. That estimate also includes developing new engines for the Earth Departure Stage. NASA now plans a cheaper approach that would modify engines used during Apollo.

The money crunch will be greatest during the next five years while the shuttle is still flying. But over time, adequate funding for the plan appears likely, at least on paper, if the projects can manage to stay within their budgets.

NASA's overall budget is expected to reach about $17 billion in 2006. If the agency averages only $20 billion annually during the next 20 years, it will receive a total of $400 billion. The estimated $217 billion exploration cost through 2025 represents 54 percent of that total. NASA already spends about half of its budget on human-spaceflight programs.

The challenge will be to keep the projects on schedule and within budget. The plan also must survive three presidential elections and five new Congresses before astronauts again can walk on the moon.

"It's going to take a long, persistent, patient effort," said Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., a member of the House Science Committee. "The question is: 'Will political leaders and the public continue that support for that length of time?' "

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who flew aboard the shuttle as a congressman, is optimistic.

"I think with a visionary president, you can ignite the imagination of people and kindle that yearning for exploration," Nelson said. "I think this is very doable in Congress because Congress is a reflection of the American people."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...home-headlines

**Parihaka** · 02 Aug 05,, 09:45

here's a picture

**Garry** · 02 Aug 05,, 14:32

Originally Posted by parihaka

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...home-headlines

USA can do it. $217bn is nothing compared to $12 trillions in GDP.... this makes not even 2%.... and if it is distributed for 15 years.... I see that you can easily exceed this budget 2-3 times.... and probably you would on....

Even now... $17bn for 2006 is twice more than the sum of budgets of Europe, Japan, China, India and Russia. Yes Hubble was single most important advacement for space science in recent decade.... however it made just a bit of NASA annual bill...... rest was in administration of different programs.

If Russian space agency ever had even one fifth of that money they could have sent a mission to the Mars.... the plan was very close Wernher von Braun's Rendezvous on Earth Orbit.

Launching Modules to the orbit and then taking off to Mars orbit.... however it was planned that mission would have waited on Mars orbit station until it was time to return back....

This plan is not possible until the total budget of Russian Space Agency is $800mln of which half is devoted on providing communicatin sattelites to Ministry of Communication and Media.....

**Garry** · 02 Aug 05,, 14:53

Originally Posted by parihaka

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...home-headlines

I have no knowlegde.... can you comment this:

Russians don't use solid fuel rockets because of uncontrolled nature... you can't stop the process once you started it. However NASA uses it in Shuttle because Solid fuel rockets have enourmous power to weight ratio....

I have heard this explanation from somebody whose compentence is questionable. Can you comment this?