[FPSPACE] Ares 1/ Ares 5 or Direct?

[E.P. Grondine]

How did we end up with a shuttle derived launch vehicle that requires 6 tons of compensation so that its crew is not brain damaged by vibration during launch? 

Well, Sherman, let's step into the wayback machine, for the elevator briefing...

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20080220/alliant-techsystems-lobbied-on-nasa.htm

Alliant Techsystems Inc. spent $2.17 million in 2007 to lobby the federal government on funding bills and other legislation related to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Alliant, which makes solid rocket motors and other launch system components as well as ammunition, spent $1.16 million on lobbying in the second half of the year, according to a disclosure form posted online last week by the Senate's public records office. In the first half of the year, the Edina, Minn., compay lobbied on NASA appropriations as well as the Space Shuttle program and the new ARES rockets now in development.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alliant_Techsystems

"The company spent $1,400,000 for lobbying in 2006. $357,500 went to seven lobbying firms with the remainder being spent using in-house lobbyists. One of the lobbying firms used was Kimmitt, Senter, Coates & Weinfurter." [Not including "consultants".]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/24/AR2005082402015_pf.html

"Astronauts Turn to Lobbying
By Judy Sarasohn Thursday, August 25, 2005; A17

It seemed like a natural fit: pairing a company that manufactures space shuttle booster rockets with astronauts. That is just what ATK Thiokol Inc. has done. According to their lobby registrations, retired astronauts Daniel Barry, Franklin Chang-Diaz, Thomas Jones, retired Marine Maj. Gen. Charles Bolden, retired Navy Capt. Daniel Bursch and retired Air Force Col. John Blaha will help ATK Thiokol "with an education campaign on the design considerations of the next generation NASA launch vehicles, in particular the shuttle-derived concepts through visits with members of Congress and other key decision makers."

"They, more than most experts, have a clear understanding of the need for safety and simplicity in our vehicles and propulsion systems," Mike Bender, an ATK-Washington Operations official, said in an e-mail response to questions about the lobby registrations.

Also working on this and other ATK Thiokol efforts are the Livingston Group , including former House member Robert Livingston (R-La.), and Dittus Communications .

Bolden and Barry said they were happy to help when asked by Scott Horowitz, a former shuttle commander who is now an official of ATK Thiokol. Bolden said it was easy to support the company and its rockets because "we lived it. It is systems we know and feel comfortable with." Barry noted that the astronaut-lobbyists were in the business of educating, and "weren't asking anybody for anything."

http://thehill.com/business--lobby/lobbying-world-2005-04-20.html

KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, has named William Bodie vice president of communications, government and customer affairs. Bodie, a former special assistant to the secretary of the Air Force, comes to KBR from DFI International. KBR also announced that Joseph Cosumano would become vice president of contingency and homeland operations. Most recently at ATK-Thiokol, Cosumano is a retired Army lieutenant general who served as the commanding general of the U.S. Space and Missile Defense Command, among other assignments.

[note the SDIO connection]

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ares.htm

"Then in 2003 the space shuttle Columbia was lost during re-entry. The final shuttle myth - that it was safer than alternatives - was demolished. Flights of the shuttle would have to end by 2010, it was decided, and therefore a successor ready for flight before then.

"On 4 September 2004, NASA announced selection of contractors for initial Crew Exploration Vehicle studies. ...each contractor conducted thousands of pages of rigorous trade studies against NASA's proposed requirements, they came to very different conclusions. However there were some common themes identified by more than one contractor:
* The optimum CEV would have a mass of under 9 tonnes and a crew of four or less.
* The lowest cost launch solution would be to use existing expendable launch vehicles (Atlas V and Delta IV) or derivative. This would allow launch of the CEV on earth-orbit missions by a single booster existing ELV. Three-booster versions of existing ELV's could orbit elements of lunar or Mars expeditions.
* The most flexible and logical lunar exploration architecture was to assemble lunar expedition components at the L1 Earth-Moon Lagrangian point. This allowed unconstrained launch and landing schedules, and provided a permanent way station for not only lunar, but Martian exploration. 

BUT:

"ATK Thiokol made proposals in 2004 for a shuttle-derived booster to launch cargo payloads of 18 tonnes, or the manned CEV Crew Exploration Vehicle, into low earth orbit. A single shuttle solid rocket booster would be mated with an upper stage in the 100 tonne class. NASA's own studies led it to a similar vehicle, but with a larger upper stage and a 25 tonne payload. The components of this vehicle would be augmented and clustered to make a Saturn V-class vehicle for the Orion return-to-the-moon mission.

...By the time the final CEV proposals were received, Mike Griffin had been appointed the new NASA Administrator. He saw that the CEV plan would realistically leave NASA with a half-decade gap between the retirement of the shuttle and the commencing of CEV flights. Griffin obtained White House backing to reject all of the contractor's proposals abandon the long, expensive, 'spiral' development process, and plunge ahead using existing technology and NASA's best judgment. On June 13, 2005, NASA announced the down-select of two contractors: Lockheed Martin and the team of Northrop Grumman and Boeing. However the selected contractors would only build a CEV to NASA's own design.

...Phase 1 was now accelerated so that a single contractor would be selected without prototyping or flight-test in 2006, so that the spacecraft could be available by 2010 as a shuttle replacement. THE CREW REQUIREMENT WAS INCREASED TO SIX, AND CEV LAUNCH MASS TO 30 TONNES, MEANING THE CEV COULD ONLY BE LAUNCHED ATOP A SHUTTLE-DERIVED, NASA-OPERATED LAUNCH VEHICLE. The CEV would be launched into earth orbit by the Crew Launch Vehicle, a shuttle-derived two-stage rocket consisting of a single Shuttle RSRM solid booster as the first stage and a new second stage, 5.5 m in diameter, using Lox/LH2 propellants and powered by a single SSME.


E.P.
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. 
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_allup_explore_012009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.friends-partners.org/pipermail/fpspace/attachments/20090124/e01e17e5/attachment.html