~Jon

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Lunar missions, though they’ll generate “precious” science data (maybe), are really poor bang-for-the-buck investments of national resources compared to helping bring new technologies like orbital propellant transfer and storage into commercial service.

~Jon

the “orbital refuel” is one of the most interesting research around and the best “non-sci-fi” technology able to cut (by half or less) the spaceflights’ cost (to shift from “a few” to “dozens” missions per year!)

also, I’ve suggested a SIMPLE (and minimal) “orbital refuel” for the ESAS plan (to solve the “underpowered Ares-I/owerweighted Orion” problem”) as explained this article:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/031easyways.html

and this is the direct link to the orbital refuel image:

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/7578/magictankeo5.jpg

unfortunately, I believe that NASA will never adopt this smart technology (not even if a private company will offer to NASA a ready to use “orbital Gas station”…) that for two main reason:

1. the orbital refuel adds a (small or big) complexity to the ESAS missions’ architecture (and NASA has FEAR to FAIL …that’s why the new missions’ architecture and vehicles are so close to the Apollo program…)

2. the BIG aerospace companies and space agencies absolutely NEED giant and very expensive 100% expendable vehicles since great part of the government funds are used to pay their army employees, engineers, scientists, etc. while, adopting low cost architectures like the orbital refuel and/or cheap rockets like the Falcon, could be 80-90% unnecessary, then fired… (with a giant cut of the NASA annual budget…)

so, the only possible orbital refuel must be built in space by PRIVATES and USED only by PRIVATES (like happen to-day with our cars)

about the Direct-like rockets for orbital refuel… all alternative ESAS rockets have no future since NASA has ALREADY assigned ALL Ares-I contracts (and they have NOT money to develop TWO launchers for the Orion) also, the orbital refuel goal is/must be to CUT the missions costs, so, the fuel must be carried in orbit with VERY CHEAP rockets (Soyuz, Proton, falcon, etc.) and NOT with NASA-level Ares-like multi-billion$$$ rocket like the Ares-I/V or my “FAST-SLV” or the (FAST-SLV but FOUR months LATER) “Direct”…

COSTS are VERY VERY important for the success of the orbital refuel technologies!

.

Shouldn’t they be doing research into on-orbit propellant transfer, regardless of whether it enables VSE, specifically because it would allow Falcon 1 class vehicles to do what Atlas 401 class vehicles do now, and thus make possible less expensive satellites?

Shouldn’t they be leading standards bodies for standardized satellite frames that have all the orbital insertion burn, uplink/downlink, stationkeeping, momentum wheels, star tracking and so forth that everyone needs?

I think we’re seeing some of the forces in play that will set up the Ares program for future irrelevance. As I see it, two decades from now people will be complaining about how Ares is being discontinued despite its promise. The problem is that the program cannot be sustained on its own, but is supported purely by public funds. Nor does it help economic growth much more than spending public funds generically helps.

There’s little point to building space infrastructure that will be thrown away.

DIRECT is promising in that it seems to me to be an adequate heavy launch vehicle that could launch with decent launch frequency (unlike the Ares 5) and doesn’t duplicate future commercial launch vehicles (unlike the Ares 1).

But even so, DIRECT can be a waste of time, if the US doesn’t grow as a result of its use. At least, if NASA (or someone else) developes orbital propellant transfer, then that’s a useful technology that can enable other activities in space than just the expenditure of public funds. In my view, we need to consider how to encourage more economic activity in space whether manned or not. I consider development of technology that private industry can use and service in the near future, to be far more useful than the sort of big but unproductive missions, both manned and unmanned, that NASA specializes in.