(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});<\/p>\n
See Also<\/h4>\n\n- Constellation Forum Sections<\/li>\n
- L2 Ares\/Orion Sections (over several hundred gbs in size)<\/li>\n
- Click here to Join L2<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
It is also noted that the ULA used the same ascent trajectory constraints as Ares I, such as the LAS (Launch Abort System) jet at Upper Stage Ignition (+30 sec, -30x100nmi injection).<\/p>\n
The data did, however, point towards the ULA being required to optimize their current trajectory elements, although that would be refined after an \u201capples-to-apples\u201d comparison with Ares I \u2013 which was the focus of the study.<\/p>\n
On costs, information notes a new, dedicated launch pad (LC-37A) for Delta IV-H \u2013 if required \u2013 would cost around $750M, although sources claim it would be a lower dollar figure. An alternative Vehicle Integration Building (VIB) and Mobile Launch Platform (MLP) for Atlas V-H on LC-41 would cost around $350M.<\/p>\n
It would also cost another $350m and 30 months to finish non-recurring work and field Atlas V-H.<\/p>\n
The issue of \u201cBlack Zones\u201d \u2013 often cited by Constellation managers as a negative issue with the EELVs \u2013 has been closed, and is not deemed to be a restrictive issue for \u201chuman rating\u201d the vehicles.<\/p>\n
However, ULA\u2019s estimate of $400M to human rate the Delta IV-H \u2013 and a figure of around $200m to carry out the same process on an Atlas V-H \u2013 are deemed as \u201cwildly off base\u201d by NASA sources, who claim it would take many billions and many years to satisfy NASA ground rules. Those sources refused to expand on what their larger estimates are based on.<\/p>\n
A major negative point for switching to EELV relates to the NASA workforce, especially at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), and other \u201cshuttle derived\u201d centers and contractors.<\/p>\n
Currently, a percentage of the shuttle workforce have \u2013 or will be \u2013 transitioned over to Constellation, although several thousand will still lose their jobs at the end of the shuttle program. A switch to EELV would see the job losses rise dramatically, according to NASA sources, who add it would also destroy the skill set.<\/p>\n
It is also claimed that either an Atlas V-H or a Delta IV-H would be ready to launch with the existing Orion until 2014, which is later \u2013 but potentially more realistic \u2013 than previous claims reported in the media.<\/p>\n
A large gap in US manned space flight would still exist without shuttle extension, although the current five year gap until Ares\/Orion\u2019s IOC (Initial Operating Capability) is unstable, and likely to grow, even if the upcoming PMR summit finds short term solutions to the funding shortage and schedule disconnects.<\/p>\n
Mike Griffin Speech:<\/p>\n
With a new NASA administrator expected to be announced very shortly \u2013 within days some sources claim \u2013 the seriousness of NASA\u2019s funding through the transition to a return to the moon, and the future aim of manned missions to Mars was bluntly outlined by the former NASA administrator, during a speech on April 17 to the National Space Club Goddard Dinner.<\/p>\n
![\"a215\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/04\/a215.jpg\" "\\"a215\\"")
Citing the proposed Fiscal 2010 budget outline released by President Obama, Mr Griffin notes the current plan to retire the space shuttle in 2010 as \u201cgood news\u201d \u2013 despite the growing schedule pressure of needing to complete nine missions in around one and a half years, and the resulting gap of at least five years \u2013 a situation that grew worse under his watch.<\/p>\n
\u201cA few weeks ago, President Obama released his new administration\u2019s proposed Fiscal 2010 budget. For those of us who understand the value of human space exploration, of going once again beyond the shoals of low Earth orbit, the words accompanying the budget release were encouraging,\u201d noted Mr Griffin on a transcript of his speech.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe President\u2019s budget reiterated support for the retirement of the Space Shuttle and its replacement by the initial Constellation elements, continuation of International Space Station operations after 2015, and for human lunar return by 2020. All of that is good news.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, Mr Griffin then went on the offensive, claiming the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for the Constellation Program\u2019s problems, noting they have removed $15 billion from the NASA pot since President Bush announced the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE).<\/p>\n
\u201cWork at the staff level continues out of view of the nation\u2019s elected leadership, and in the recent passback to NASA from the Office of Management and Budget, the news is not so good. After a small increase this year, Exploration Systems at NASA goes down by $3.5 billion over the next four years.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen combined with earlier reductions of almost $12 billion during the Bush Administration, well over $15 billion has been extracted from the Exploration Systems budget in the five short years since the new space policy was announced. Funding for lunar return in the Constellation program was already less than $4 billion in the years prior to 2015.<\/p>\n
![\"a313\"](\"https:\/\/www.nasaspaceflight.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/04\/a313.jpg\" "\\"a313\\"")
\u201cThis was to be allocated to early work on the Ares V heavy-lifter, and the Altair lunar lander. With only a half-billion dollars now available, this work cannot be done.\u201d<\/p>\n
Noting the change of direction within the Agency since the loss of Columbia and her crew on STS-107, Mr Griffin added: \u201cin the last five years two presidents and two Congresses have provided the top-level direction necessary to ensure that the root cause of Columbia\u2019s loss \u2013 the lack of a guiding strategic vision for NASA \u2013 never happens again.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut apparently something more is needed. We\u2019re not matching the words with the necessary actions at the staff level. How soon we forget.<\/p>\n
\u201cLet me be clear. In a democracy, the proper purpose of the OMB is not to find a way to create a Potemkin Village at NASA. It is not to create the appearance of having a real space program without having to pay for it. It is not to specify to NASA how much money shall be allocated for human lunar return by 2020.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe proper purpose of the OMB is to work with NASA, as a partner in good government, to craft carefully vetted estimates of what is required to achieve national policy goals. The judgment as to whether the stated goals are too costly, or not, is one to be made by the nation\u2019s elected leadership, not career civil service staff.\u201d<\/p>\n
After noting the advances made by other countries in their goals of building towards exploration, and the resulting threat they pose in overtaking the US as the world leader in \u201cdefining, occupying, and extending the human frontier,\u201d Mr Griffin turned his attentions towards the criticism of Ares I, saying \u201cso what?\u201d to the possibility there are better alternatives available, given the amount of money and effort that would have been wasted on Ares, if it was to be cancelled at this stage of development.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019ve grown impatient with the argument that Orion and Ares I are not perfect, and should be supplanted with other designs,\u201d he noted. \u201cI don\u2019t agree that there is a better approach for the money, but if there were, so what?<\/p>\n
\u201cAny proposed approach would need to be enormously better to justify wiping out four years worth of solid progress. Engineers do not deal with \u201cperfect\u201d. Your viewgraphs will always be better than my hardware.<\/p>\n
\u201cA fictional space program will always be faster, better, and cheaper than a real space program.<\/p>\n
\u201cNo one can wrest leadership in space from the United States. We\u2019re that good. But we can certainly cede it, and that is the path we are on.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn this 40th anniversary year of Apollo, we need to ask ourselves some hard questions. Do we actually want to have a real space program? Do we want to be a leader in space, a leader on the frontier? Or do we just want to talk about what we used to do, and what we plan to do, someday?\u201d<\/p>\n
L2 members<\/em><\/em>: Documentation \u2013 from which the above article has quoted snippets \u2013 is available in full in the related L2 sections, now over 4000 gbs in size.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"A study by the Aerospace Corporation, conducted at the request of NASA to disprove the viability of an option to switch Orion to an alternative Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), has found both the Atlas V Heavy and Delta IV Heavy are capable of launching Orion on both ISS and Lunar missions. Meanwhile, former NASA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[9198,2705,640,8184],"class_list":["post-41126","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news","tag-ares","tag-eelv","tag-orion","tag-sls-orion"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41126"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41126"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41126\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
It is also noted that the ULA used the same ascent trajectory constraints as Ares I, such as the LAS (Launch Abort System) jet at Upper Stage Ignition (+30 sec, -30x100nmi injection).<\/p>\n
The data did, however, point towards the ULA being required to optimize their current trajectory elements, although that would be refined after an \u201capples-to-apples\u201d comparison with Ares I \u2013 which was the focus of the study.<\/p>\n
On costs, information notes a new, dedicated launch pad (LC-37A) for Delta IV-H \u2013 if required \u2013 would cost around $750M, although sources claim it would be a lower dollar figure. An alternative Vehicle Integration Building (VIB) and Mobile Launch Platform (MLP) for Atlas V-H on LC-41 would cost around $350M.<\/p>\n
It would also cost another $350m and 30 months to finish non-recurring work and field Atlas V-H.<\/p>\n
The issue of \u201cBlack Zones\u201d \u2013 often cited by Constellation managers as a negative issue with the EELVs \u2013 has been closed, and is not deemed to be a restrictive issue for \u201chuman rating\u201d the vehicles.<\/p>\n
However, ULA\u2019s estimate of $400M to human rate the Delta IV-H \u2013 and a figure of around $200m to carry out the same process on an Atlas V-H \u2013 are deemed as \u201cwildly off base\u201d by NASA sources, who claim it would take many billions and many years to satisfy NASA ground rules. Those sources refused to expand on what their larger estimates are based on.<\/p>\n
A major negative point for switching to EELV relates to the NASA workforce, especially at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), and other \u201cshuttle derived\u201d centers and contractors.<\/p>\n
Currently, a percentage of the shuttle workforce have \u2013 or will be \u2013 transitioned over to Constellation, although several thousand will still lose their jobs at the end of the shuttle program. A switch to EELV would see the job losses rise dramatically, according to NASA sources, who add it would also destroy the skill set.<\/p>\n
It is also claimed that either an Atlas V-H or a Delta IV-H would be ready to launch with the existing Orion until 2014, which is later \u2013 but potentially more realistic \u2013 than previous claims reported in the media.<\/p>\n
A large gap in US manned space flight would still exist without shuttle extension, although the current five year gap until Ares\/Orion\u2019s IOC (Initial Operating Capability) is unstable, and likely to grow, even if the upcoming PMR summit finds short term solutions to the funding shortage and schedule disconnects.<\/p>\n
Mike Griffin Speech:<\/p>\n
With a new NASA administrator expected to be announced very shortly \u2013 within days some sources claim \u2013 the seriousness of NASA\u2019s funding through the transition to a return to the moon, and the future aim of manned missions to Mars was bluntly outlined by the former NASA administrator, during a speech on April 17 to the National Space Club Goddard Dinner.<\/p>\n
Citing the proposed Fiscal 2010 budget outline released by President Obama, Mr Griffin notes the current plan to retire the space shuttle in 2010 as \u201cgood news\u201d \u2013 despite the growing schedule pressure of needing to complete nine missions in around one and a half years, and the resulting gap of at least five years \u2013 a situation that grew worse under his watch.<\/p>\n
\u201cA few weeks ago, President Obama released his new administration\u2019s proposed Fiscal 2010 budget. For those of us who understand the value of human space exploration, of going once again beyond the shoals of low Earth orbit, the words accompanying the budget release were encouraging,\u201d noted Mr Griffin on a transcript of his speech.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe President\u2019s budget reiterated support for the retirement of the Space Shuttle and its replacement by the initial Constellation elements, continuation of International Space Station operations after 2015, and for human lunar return by 2020. All of that is good news.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, Mr Griffin then went on the offensive, claiming the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for the Constellation Program\u2019s problems, noting they have removed $15 billion from the NASA pot since President Bush announced the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE).<\/p>\n
\u201cWork at the staff level continues out of view of the nation\u2019s elected leadership, and in the recent passback to NASA from the Office of Management and Budget, the news is not so good. After a small increase this year, Exploration Systems at NASA goes down by $3.5 billion over the next four years.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen combined with earlier reductions of almost $12 billion during the Bush Administration, well over $15 billion has been extracted from the Exploration Systems budget in the five short years since the new space policy was announced. Funding for lunar return in the Constellation program was already less than $4 billion in the years prior to 2015.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis was to be allocated to early work on the Ares V heavy-lifter, and the Altair lunar lander. With only a half-billion dollars now available, this work cannot be done.\u201d<\/p>\n
Noting the change of direction within the Agency since the loss of Columbia and her crew on STS-107, Mr Griffin added: \u201cin the last five years two presidents and two Congresses have provided the top-level direction necessary to ensure that the root cause of Columbia\u2019s loss \u2013 the lack of a guiding strategic vision for NASA \u2013 never happens again.<\/p>\n
\u201cBut apparently something more is needed. We\u2019re not matching the words with the necessary actions at the staff level. How soon we forget.<\/p>\n
\u201cLet me be clear. In a democracy, the proper purpose of the OMB is not to find a way to create a Potemkin Village at NASA. It is not to create the appearance of having a real space program without having to pay for it. It is not to specify to NASA how much money shall be allocated for human lunar return by 2020.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe proper purpose of the OMB is to work with NASA, as a partner in good government, to craft carefully vetted estimates of what is required to achieve national policy goals. The judgment as to whether the stated goals are too costly, or not, is one to be made by the nation\u2019s elected leadership, not career civil service staff.\u201d<\/p>\n
After noting the advances made by other countries in their goals of building towards exploration, and the resulting threat they pose in overtaking the US as the world leader in \u201cdefining, occupying, and extending the human frontier,\u201d Mr Griffin turned his attentions towards the criticism of Ares I, saying \u201cso what?\u201d to the possibility there are better alternatives available, given the amount of money and effort that would have been wasted on Ares, if it was to be cancelled at this stage of development.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019ve grown impatient with the argument that Orion and Ares I are not perfect, and should be supplanted with other designs,\u201d he noted. \u201cI don\u2019t agree that there is a better approach for the money, but if there were, so what?<\/p>\n
\u201cAny proposed approach would need to be enormously better to justify wiping out four years worth of solid progress. Engineers do not deal with \u201cperfect\u201d. Your viewgraphs will always be better than my hardware.<\/p>\n
\u201cA fictional space program will always be faster, better, and cheaper than a real space program.<\/p>\n
\u201cNo one can wrest leadership in space from the United States. We\u2019re that good. But we can certainly cede it, and that is the path we are on.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn this 40th anniversary year of Apollo, we need to ask ourselves some hard questions. Do we actually want to have a real space program? Do we want to be a leader in space, a leader on the frontier? Or do we just want to talk about what we used to do, and what we plan to do, someday?\u201d<\/p>\n
L2 members<\/em><\/em>: Documentation \u2013 from which the above article has quoted snippets \u2013 is available in full in the related L2 sections, now over 4000 gbs in size.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A study by the Aerospace Corporation, conducted at the request of NASA to disprove the viability of an option to switch Orion to an alternative Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), has found both the Atlas V Heavy and Delta IV Heavy are capable of launching Orion on both ISS and Lunar missions. Meanwhile, former NASA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[9198,2705,640,8184],"class_list":["post-41126","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news","tag-ares","tag-eelv","tag-orion","tag-sls-orion"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41126"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41126"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41126\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/starpath.global\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}