a clearer vision

a clearer vision

Both Ben Reytblat and Jon Goff are arguing for placing fuel depots in orbit (either in low earth orbit, at the L1 libration orbit, or both). This would increase the amount of commercial involvement in the the Vision for Space Exploration, and thus increase the quantity of trips between the earth and moon. This would also mean that much of the current VSE architecture would change:

Once you have reusable tugs, low-cost and probably reusable earth-to-orbit transportation, and a reusable lander, does it still make sense to have people carted around in a huge reentry module like the CEV? Does that really make sense when you're trying to develop a transportation system that's cheap enough to be long-term sustainable at robust levels of lunar flight demand?

I don't really think so. Many of the subsystems wanted in the CEV already are needed for the other components. If you can return the habitat portion safely to LEO after the flight, why not ride down on whatever style of craft you rode up in? Why do you even need a capsule at all? Direct return to earth may be the simplest route, but it's unlikely to be the cheapest. If you can come down from orbit in a reusable vehicle for instance, then you don't need to ship the habitat module up and down with every flight. If that hab module is meant for in-space use only, it will also likely be designed in a substantially different manner from a capsule that has to survive reentry, steer, land on land or at sea, be watertight, have components that won't corrode with sea-water, have bear-proof latches on the doors...etc.

I agree with this. The current VSE is following the same ruinous path as the space shuttle: trying to be all things to all missions. There is no reason for the module that takes people from LEO to lunar orbit (or L1) and back to also be the same module in which people reenter the earth's atmosphere. There is no reason that the module that takes people from lunar orbit (or L1) to the moon's surface and back needs to ever return to earth, and no economical reason for it to be wasted on every trip, to be replaced by another copy that is launched from the earth with every mission.

The current VSE calls for multiple launches per mission anyhow. Why not go whole-hog and make it so that many, many space companies can get involved? There is no reason for NASA to do absolutely everything. If 8 different companies can launch people into space, then let them. If more than one company can set up fuel depots in low earth orbit and/or at L1 and/or on the moon's surface, then let them. If more than one company can take over a stage of the voyage such as LEO-L1 or L1-moon, then let them. If a dozen different companies can send fuel to a fuel depot operated at LEO or L1, then let them.

The net result would be that NASA (or any other customer) would only pay for services as needed. NASA would pay a private company for the trip into space to the LEO station, then another company (whichever one has seats available) for the LEO to L1 trip, and another company for the L1 to moon's surface trip; then they would pay the lunar base operator for the accomodations there. At each stage, NASA would have no up-front costs, only paying for results delivered. The transportation companies operating between LEO and L1 or between L1 and the moon (and back) would be paying the fuel depot operators for gassing up; the fuel depot operators would be paying the fuel launch companies for propellant deliveries, and so on. At every stage, there would be a population involved in tasks other than the primary tasks of the stage: hoteliers, restaurateurs, medical staff, maintenance workers, construction staff, and on and on. In short, Ben and Jeff's ideas would lead to an entire cislunar economy. Such an economy is essential if the Vision for Space Exploration is to ever become more than another Apollo-flags-and-footprints one-shot, robust enough to survive several changes in US administration. It would also mean that the costs to NASA would be much lower in the long run.

This is the way NASA must go about implementing the VSE. If they stick with The Stick and Longfellow, they will be putting all their eggs into one basket, to be sacrificed at the whim of a few congressmen. Instead, they could follow Ben and Jon's ideas and end up with an actual exploration program, with NASA paying for whatever private industry can supply (cash on delivery) and doing themselves those things they are best at: the cutting-edge research that they hope to accomplish outside the confines of the (privately-supported) moonbase(s).

Technorati Tags: Space, NASA, Moon