Hyperbola understands that the following will be options in the US Review of human spaceflight plans committee report that is to be about 100-pages long;
- A Space Shuttle extension with more flights beyond any "stretching out" of the current manifest
- The Heavy Lift Vehicle that is a variant of the famous "Shuttle-C" design
- Ares I crew launch vehicle and Orion crew exploration vehicle block one
The key aspect of the first two options is that they fit into the existing budget line. An advantage of HLV is that its cargo carrier could be operated along side the crewed orbiter
Other options Augustine's committee will put forward will require outlying years' budgets to be in excess of what Obama's fiscal year 2010 budget requested. Hyperbola is not aware of any Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle options being included at this time
Various media reports have referred to subcommittees' of the Norman Augustine led review committee being pro-Shuttle extension but Hyperbola understands that the report itself, expected in a month's time, will have an option for continuation of Shuttle
Other media reports have referred to Augustine committee members identifying a likely 2017 start for Orion and Ares I. A fourth quarter 2008 report by the Congressional Budget Office made the same determination
on August 3, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply
Thanks for tireless, proven work, Rob. We note no mention of on-orbit re-fueling development, but are not surprised since this is clearly R&D, with miles to go before deploy, despite notions of this being "shovel ready."
Many are also reporting, (assuming?) continued blessings, at minimum of COTS, and/or deregulation (or "study" of same) commercial space.
Any hints as to above?
on August 3, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply
I strongly endorse the SD-HLV concepts!
The SD-HLV with an an EDS should be able to place a 47 tonne Altair lunar lander into lunar orbit.
An Orion SD-HLV with an EDS should be able to carry astronauts into lunar orbit plus an additional 20 to 25 metric tons of payload. The extra payload might be useful if NASA decides to develop a reusable (10 flights?) Altair lunar lander that could be refueled with oxygen and liquid methane from lunar orbit and from lunar oxygen and from methane produced from human waste on the lunar surface.
on August 3, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply
I don't understand the first option. You extend the Shuttle and... then... what ?...
on August 3, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply
So all this strategy does is extend Shuttle, thus apply MORE pressure to Orion Ares I, space systems R&D, and science, and ISS, and continue the course, as side-mount in the future really means “more trades and committees in the future”.
And sustainability is addressed how?
Constellation redux as Ares I meets Shuttle-C, still being two vehicles, leaves not much more money in human space flight in the future 2020's than Ares V would have. It's a dual vehicle architecture, now a tri-vehicle architecture at the start - with the Shuttle extension.
Where is there money left for investing in sustainable space systems, affordable transports and such? This strategic issue goes un-addressed. Where is the money for COTS-D, for developing space systems that are affordable on a RECURRING basis? So when we go out there we can stay. Where is alternate advanced propulsion? Where is low TRL space systems R&D that is not mission / near term architecture centric?
Lets hope the rumor is incorrect.
on August 4, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply
So are these just some of the options that the panel has or are these the recommendations they will present?
That's a big difference, can you clarify please.
on August 4, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply
Yeah, I don't get this. Shuttle extension to 2014 costs billions that will not only delay Ares I, but won't allow work to begin on Shuttle C until 2014, let alone EDS and depot research.
on August 5, 2009 3:33 AM | Reply
The Augustine committee report will NOT have recommendations. They are only presenting options. What that means is that the committee will be telling Obama what his administration could do with x funds and not what they should do. Those x funds will be within the project budget in Obama's FY2010 request for NASA and beyond that budget profile
on August 5, 2009 3:34 AM | Reply
Have a follow-on programme
on August 16, 2009 7:29 AM | Reply
The main question is again what will replace the Shuttle?, a certain Scaled Composites is building the next generation of earth to space vehicles, so why for sakes can't NASA?, until we can have regular weekly access to space there is no point in going to the moon, mars or a trip round the solar system, a larger version of spaceship 2 and about ten of them will fix the whole problem, then use the HLV to lift the cargo.
on September 28, 2009 7:42 AM | Reply
Please note points of convergence between the Summary Report of the Augustine Commission and the UPLIFT solution of the Rocket Science Institute.
The Space Shuttle: extension of Shuttle at a minimum safe flight rate to preserve U.S. capability to (support ISS), (including) a thorough Shuttle recert-ification.
The International Space Station: extension of ISS life to 2020. The strong and tested working relationship among international partners is perhaps the most important outcome of the ISS program.
The Orion Spacecraft:The Committee found no evidence that the current design will not be acceptable for its wide variety of tasks in the exploration program.
The Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle: building a single NASA vehicle [on which (both) Orion and Altair are launched] could reduce carrying and operations costs, and accelerate heavy-lift development.
The Orion Launch Vehicle: because of technical and budget issues, the Ares I no longer supports the US needs.
The Moon First: is a viable exploration strategy - we would be well served gaining experience working on the lunar surface (before going on to Mars).
The Funding Issue:The Committee finds that no plan compatible with the FY 2010 budget profile permits human exploration to continue -it is (only) possible to conduct a viable exploration program with a budget rising (substantially.)