NASA's Plan B to Get U.S. to Moon

June 24, 2009

Here's a video of NASA's alternative vehicle for replacing the space shuttle fleet. You can read about the proposal on Discovery News. 

Comments

[Andy Darnell]

Not as sexy as the ARES, Won't allow for the size and weight of the current lander, but if it allows for more missions ultimately to the moon. (and assuming obama cuts NASA spending to pay for his crazy healthcare plan) this looks like an alternative.

[David Buchner]

Cool. I'm seeing versions of this story, with your byline, all over the place. And people are e-mailing me links to it out of the blue. Hmm.

[gaetano marano - ghostNASA.com]

.

just posted my suggestion #8 for the Human Space Flight Plans Committee and NASA:

"resize the Orion to 4.5 meters and its crew to three astronauts"

http://ow.ly/f3vQ

.

[Robert Jensen]

What is our national objective? Are we to go forward, backward, or laterally? This "new" vehicle is an obvious lateral move and it is disappointing. The piggy back system of the STS program is flawed and is more inherently dangerous than than the conventional stack. The Columbia disaster is directly atttributed to piggybacking which allowed foam falling from the External Tank to strike to orbiter. If we are to push on in space, we need a new vehicle, not a rehash of old and outdated hardware. Downsizing Orion to a 3 person crew drags us backwards to Apollo. Retain the enlarged crew. Push forward for Ares I and Ares V. Let's stimulate the economy by creating jobs in the space industry like we did in the 1960's and set firm, explorative goals to not only return to the moon, but to go beyond. Let's step forward and upward and be visionaries, not scavengers of old technology.

[Kris Hildreth]

In comparison to the DIRECT proposal, this is another Dog's breakfast - albeit cheaper - of a NASA scheme which - especially if they persist in utilizing the eco-foam that killed 7 Astronauts - will do what the STS did for reusable launch systems.
One cannot help get the impression that Plan B is one last - almost desperate - attempt to ensure NASA is not(SORREE!) directed to change over to the DIRECT proposal, whch even if it actually costs $3B more than estimate is still 1/2 the cost of ARES 1/V with greater and more flexible capabilities: using existing off-the shelf hardware mark you.
I wouldn't mind the opposition to DIRECT if their scheme was purely their own but it derives from NASA's past work which they chose to put on the back burner. Having done that, along comes ATK(Morton Thiokol, the folks that gave us Challenger) with a proposal which NASA adopts unchanged - and then has to be drastically changed to meet specifications - and we're lumbered with a $30B LV boondoggle which requires continual upsizing and design changes - not to mention more and more money we don't have - to even perform minimally.
Interesting point: ARES 1&5/ Plan B are NASA management schemes whilst DIRECT comes from the ignored/quashed rank and file who REALLY care about spacefaring and the way we get there. I'm willing to bet that, if adopted, Plan B will cost the same as DIRECT with poorer performance.