Project Constellation - Dead Letter in 2009?

[EmperorJulian]

I don't know how many of you follow the US Space Program, or if this has been discussed previously. My searches didn't turn up any results so I'm assuming, in terms of specifics, this is a new topic.

I've been following the Space Shuttle program extensively since construction of the ISS was resumed back in 2006. I've also been very interested in the progress of President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration and NASA's attempt to implement that Vision with the Project Constellation program. At first I was quite enthusiastic. Seeing humans return to the moon is a prospect that's very exciting to me. As is being able to witness the development of new manned rated launch vehicles and technology. I must admit however as things have progressed I'm feeling more and more like this "Vision" if you can call it that is doomed to utter failure.

Amongst the most troubling changes that have taken place since the Ares vehicles were proposed is the transition of the designs from "Shuttle Derived" to what you might call "Shuttle Inspired" technology. This shift not only drives up development costs, but it also pushes back the availability of shuttle alternatives for God only knows how long. NASA is banking on the success of the currently non-existent J-2X engine to send the Orion capsule to the Moon, it has changed the design specifications of the Ares V such that it is now larger in circumference than the existing Shuttle external fuel tanks, meaning there can be effectively no commonalities between the two. The recommendation for the development of five-segment solid rocket boosters as opposed to the currently existing four-segment models means millions more in development and testing costs. And all this development is happening concurrently. If the J-2X is a failure, the entire program is in jeopardy.

The Orion Spacecraft and the Ares I rockets also suffer from problems. In one case, there are difficulties in fabricating a heat-shield large enough to get the job done. In the other case Pogo Oscillations may be so extreme as to cause the destruction of the Rocket. NASA of course says it's working on these problems and has solutions on the way. Well maybe they do, and maybe they do not. Couple this with a political environment that could be changed radically with the advent of a new congress and President in 2009 and things could look very, very bleak for Project Constellation. I of course have not even mentioned how Administrator Griffin has already low-balled the cost figures for the program by a large margin already.

I really can't figure out NASA's strategy on this one, they seem to be doing everything wrong, rejecting all lower cost alternatives, insisting on high priced/single objective rockets and apparently deluding themselves into believing there are no problems that can't be fixed with more money. In my mind it would be better to scrap the moon landings all together, develop the Ares IV intermediate-size rocket for cargo and capsule launches and try to build UP TO a possible lunar presence, rather than trying to hit a home run all at once. The Ares IV could send men to the moon in Apollo 8 fashion and it could get cargo and men to low earth orbit and the ISS. a Multi-Mission rocket like that might at least have the chance of surviving budget cuts or political lack of will. I frankly find the entire concept of launching two rockets for a single mission absurd. What if the Cargo Rocket (the Ares V) fails, the mission is over. Same if the Ares I has problems, there's all sorts of room for error and the costs will be astronomical (pardon the pun).

At any rate, I'm wondering what the consensus here is, if anyone pays attention to this sort of thing that is. Are any of you enthusiastic about landing men on the moon? Would you guys prefer a huge increase in science missions, R+D (like Project Prometheus) and unmanned exploration? Do you think Project Constellation would be more likely to be scrapped as it was something President Bush approved of? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this subject.

[mrmouth]

The reporting on what NASA is doing is essentially nonexistent in mainstream media, you really have to seek it out, in the past I have, but I don't any longer.

I did see a small piece a few days ago on the nightly news about how NASA was actually doing a good amount of work, and was being funded fairly heavily, in the hopes of making good on the 'rebirth' of manned space exploration.

Like you mentioned though, with the change in administration next year, it will be interesting.

[GeneralLee]

If NASA was given the same priority as the department of defense we would be seeing some badass hardware. Oh well I'll have to stick to Sci-Fi

[Exarch]

If NASA was given the same priority as the department of defense we would be seeing some badass hardware. Oh well I'll have to stick to Sci-Fi

indeed
the space race saw the development of some pretty nifty inventions; teflon and velcro come to mind.

who knows what a new space race will usher in?

[humvee2800]

The GDF?

[Hotspur]

indeed
the space race saw the development of some pretty nifty inventions; teflon and velcro come to mind.

who knows what a new space race will usher in?

Teflon was invented by accident in 1938. Velcro was invented by a Swiss engineer in 1945.

[Exarch]

Teflon was invented by accident in 1938. Velcro was invented by a Swiss engineer in 1945.

i stand corrected

It's highly unlikely NASA will be getting any huge infusions of Cash unless China declares there intent to put gatling guns on the Moon's surface or something. The whole point of going to the Moon in the first place was to beat the Russians. Without that political impetus it's very hard to get extra funding to the space program. Even those politicians who have constituencies affiliated with NASA, I believe, are more concerned with maintaining the present workforce and contracts rather than achieving any specific goal in manned space flight.

this is a really interesting point and methinks i shall start a new thread rearding this.
i too, am an avid space program watcher.

[Hotspur]

i stand corrected.

One of the benefits of being a stay-at-home dad - Modern Marvels is usually the only thing on in the afternoon.


NASA's budget is less than the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and Justice, less than half of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and less than three and a half percent of the Department of Defense - 17.6 billion dollars out of a 987.6 billion dollar budget.

[Exarch]

Global Defence Force? GDF?

[EmperorJulian]

It's highly unlikely NASA will be getting any huge infusions of Cash unless China declares there intent to put gatling guns on the Moon's surface or something. The whole point of going to the Moon in the first place was to beat the Russians. Without that political impetus it's very hard to get extra funding to the space program. Even those politicians who have constituencies affiliated with NASA, I believe, are more concerned with maintaining the present workforce and contracts rather than achieving any specific goal in manned space flight.

I'm not really sure how the mainstream media is handling news of the new Moon Rocket, such as it is. I mainly get my news from written sources and I often search for information regarding new programs. I still call the James Webb Space Telescope the NGST and I remember when Orion was just the Crew Exploration Vehicle. I don't like seeing money siphoned off from science programs, like Prometheus or the Terrestrial Planet Finder myself, especially when I'm not convinced that reallocation of funds will make any real difference in the long run. As it is the US faces at the least 5 years of no manned flight capability, and undoubtedly that figure will be much higher once everything is said and done. Getting rid of the Space Shuttle is a necessary first step, but who can say how it will turn out.

like Dr. McCoy said "The bureaucratic mentality is the only constant in the Universe." From what I'm reading that seems to hold true for NASA as much as any other organization. And that's not a good thing.

[EmperorJulian]

I do wonder what NASA will do if the program is canceled/gutted. The Shuttle isn't likely to make a comeback so I wonder what they'll do. It's possible the CEV will be built with an extremely limited LEO application. Considering Orion can't carry cargo like the Shuttle can, it's mission and abilities would be even more limited then what we have today. Still I wonder how this will play out. The moon program isn't like the Iraq War. If the Democrats gain complete control of the Presidency/Congress, they certainly wont pull out of a war and take the fall for failure, but they might be able to eliminate a "costly space venture", "unwisely" begun by President Bush and thus take a line on fiscal conservatism that the Republicans themselves abandoned long ago. Food for thought at any rate.

[EmperorJulian]

Yeah I know NASA doesn't get much of a budget. You know the Dawn mission, the one that was launched recently to Vesta and Ceres was canceled due to the cost of concurrent development of Ares, ISS Construction and Shuttle Missions. Only public and political outcry resurrected the mission. As mentioned earlier Project Prometheus, a program designed to produce miniaturized nuclear reactors (note not RTGs but actual fission reactors) was reduced to little more than an academic exercise. And funding was cut entirely for the Terrestrial Planet Finder.

None of that is good for space science; but then I'm not sure Ares/Project Constellation is good for space science (as currently envisioned) either. On the one hand it's unlikely that Orion itself will be scrapped since the contracts are already in place and testing of the ships emergency abort system was set to begin this year using boilerplate capsules. It will be interesting to see what happens, the worst possible outcome would be having a single-purpose rocket that can do nothing but sent capsules to the ISS, that would be less than useless, and worse than simply having the project shut down outright.