Credit: nasaproblems.com
Bolden $20 Bet
March 5, 2010
NASA Headquarters
Office of the Administrator
Attn: Gen. Charles F. Bolden Jr.
Subject: $20 “Plan B” Bet
Charlie,
The Commercial Space Shuttle is the only option for the “Plan B” manned spacecraft heavy-lift launch vehicle compromise. It solves the launch gap problem, has the least development cost, is commercially operated, provides the highest level of safety with crew escape pods, has proven heavy lift capability, provides the only heavy payload return capability, and has the lowest mission operation cost.
History will record that NASA management ignored requests to evaluate the commercial space shuttle as the lunar heavy lift vehicle before proceeding with their disastrous Ares Orion launch system. The hand writing is already on the wall that the Chinese space program will have a reusable space transportation system and therefore must have a space shuttle. Will history record that it was on your watch that this nation conceded human space exploration to China?
Gave the attached supporting data to Mike Coats at JSC, bet you $20 that it will never reach your desk unless Mike sends it to you.
Don
Don A. Nelson
Nelson Aerospace Consulting
Retried NASA Aerospace Engineer
NASA REPLY:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
April 1, 2010
Space Operations Mission Directorate
Mr. Don A. Nelson
Nelson Aerospace Consulting
1407 Moller Road Alvin,TX 77511
Dear Mr. Nelson:
Thank you for your recent letter to our National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Administrator, Charlie Bolden, proposing that NASA consider developing a Commercial Space Shuttle as the only Plan B option for a heavy-lift launch vehicle. After discussing your proposal and enclosures with Mr. Bolden, I have a few observations and comments to share.
Although NASA does not have a Plan B, we are actively developing the technology, tools, and safety enhancements to make a future mission to Mars both realistic and achievable. Key to that effort will be a reliable heavy-lift propulsion system. Your letter suggests that lower operations costs can be achieved by turning the Space Shuttle over to a commercial entity. A sound business case, however, would be highly dependent on market demand beyond potential NASA requirements. Various studies and surveys, such as the annual commercial space transportation market forecast published by the Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space, indicate that there is not projected growth in the launch market. For the United States (U.S.) launch vehicle services, the market is primarily for U.S. Government payloads. Consequently, there may not be the market demand to profitably sustain a commercially-operated Space Shuttle. NASA's Fiscal Year 2011 budget request includes funding for a broad scope of Research and Development (R&D) activities aimed at developing next-generation space launch propulsion technologies. These activities aim to both reduce costs and shorten development timeframes for future heavy-lift systems. More specifically the R&D will target new approaches to first-stage launch propulsion, in-space advanced engine technology development and demonstrations, and foundational or basic propulsion research.
Hopefully this brief explanation gives a little more insight into understanding NASA's forward plan. Thank you for your continued dedication to human spaceflight and crewed vehicle safety enhancements. These are noteworthy contributions and your comments are greatly appreciated.
Lynn Cline for
William H. Gerstenmaier
Associate Director for Space Operations
Nelson reply to Bolden:
Email dated April 8. 2010
Charlie:
Ms. Cline's reply to the Commercial Space Shuttle option typifies the disconnect between NASA's senior management decisions based on conjecture and decisions made on unbiased engineering analyses.
In her letter she states:
1) “There may not be the market demand to profitably sustain a commercially-operated Space Shuttle.”
The United States had lost its profitable commercial space launch market before the downturn in the satellite launch business. Our space launch industry is dependent on government support for its survival. However, while significant efforts were made to lower the operation cost of the privatized expendable launch vehicles (EELV’s), none were made for the reusable space shuttle even though a NASA JSC study report that: “Privatization of the SSP has the potential to provide significant benefits to the Government. (Ref.: “Concept of Privatization of the Space Shuttle”, Space Shuttle Program Office, Sept. 28, 2001).
2) “The R&D will target new approaches to first-stage launch propulsion, in-space advanced engine technology development and demonstrations, and foundational or basic propulsion research.”
Exhaustive launch propulsion systems evaluations have proven again and again that no significant improvements in the performance of first stage chemical engines can be achieved. In other words, we’re stuck with what we got.
In-space advance engine development can best be conducted if the engine can be tested in space and returned for evaluation. Only the space shuttle has heavy cargo return capability.
3) “NASA does not have a Plan B.”
While there may be no Plan B, NASA is investigating a heavy launch vehicle (HLV) space transportation solution for the failed Ares Orion launch system. The HLV’s will cost a minimum $11 billion to develop, has no commercial applications, has no cargo return capability, and fails to solve the launch gap. The HLV like the Constellation program requires two launches to lift 66 MT to LEO for a seven day manned lunar mission.
The existing space shuttle and EELV space transportation systems can deliver the same cargo mass to LEO and avoid the launch gap and loss of thousands of shuttle jobs. Using the space shuttle and EELV eliminates the HLV development risk and cost. A commercial space shuttle further reduces operations cost. The commercial space shuttle and EELV are the better candidates for establishing a human space based transportation system for lunar, deep space, and Mars missions. A space based transportation system is mandatory for human space exploration. To continue on the Apollo expendable vehicle concept path invites failure and disaster.
In addition there is a safety issue associated in transporting astronauts to and from LEO in space capsules that has not been addressed. The Soyuz capsule has experience two fatal incidences. Warning signs of another catastrophic Soyuz capsule failure are becoming increasingly alarming. The commercial space shuttle not only significantly lowers the cost of mission operation, it can provide crew escape pods. Has NASA forgotten that crew safety is their number one priority?
I strongly recommend that NASA have an unbiased external evaluation of the commercial space shuttle and EELV space transportation system…due diligence is mandatory in this nation’s critical stage of human space exploration.
Once again Charlie…this is happening on your watch.
Don
Don A. Nelson
Nelson Aerospace Consulting
Retired NASA Aerospace Engineer
1407 Moller Road Alvin, TX 77511
RETURN TO HOME PAGE
March 30, 2011
The Honorable Barack H. Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Subject: Presidential Directive Request for a Commercial Space Shuttle
Dear Mr. President:
There now are three failed attempts by NASA management to design a replacement vehicle for the space shuttle: Admiral Craig Steidle’s “fly off” concepts, the Ares I Orion, and the Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. All three failures were based on archaic expendable vehicles concepts. Furthermore NASA management has misrepresented the safety of an expendable crew module in which every launch is a “test” flight and the reentry phase with no crew escape system has been a death trap on too many flights.
These obsolete and costly expendable vehicle concepts are the product of the NASA management cultural impasse that has been perpetuated by the incompetent oversight of the Executive Branch offices of the NASA Inspector General and Office of Science and Technology Policy. NASA management’s belligerent refusal to accept that their expendable rocket and crew concepts are unaffordable and unsafe will continue until cancelled by an executive directive.
NASA management has steadfastly refused to evaluate the commercial space shuttle. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that a reusable commercial vehicle is more cost effective and safer. Mr. President, the commercial space shuttle is the only option for an affordable 21st century reusable and “space based” transportation system. Only a presidential directive can make this a reality.
Don A. Nelson
Nelson Aerospace Consulting (retired NASA engineer)
NO REPLY TO THIS LETTER!
RETURN TO HOME PAGE
LLLLLLLLLLLL
No comments:
Post a Comment