Shuttle Cancellation Causes Joblessness in a Florida Community

High joblessness in the home of U.S. space flight

PBS Interview with Mark Kelly and the Space Shuttle Crew

Conquering Cis-Lunar Space with Shuttle and ULA Derived Technologies

by Marcel F. Williams

Congress has now made it clear that they want the immediate development of a heavy lift vehicle and a crew exploratory vehicle capable of beyond LEO missions and as a back up transport to the ISS. They have also made it clear that they want NASA to utilize technologies derived from both the Space Shuttle and Ares I/V programs since billions of tax payer money has already been invested in these technologies.

Some, however, have argued that utilizing a heavy lift vehicle as a crew transport to LEO violates the philosophy of improving safety by not combining crew transport with cargo transport. This was part of the driving philosophy of former NASA director, Griffin, when he decided to advocate the development of the Ares I as an ultra-safe crew transport vehicle and the Ares V as a mega-heavy lift cargo vehicle.

Recently, NASA has been promoting a philosophy of developing new transport systems that can be utilized not only by NASA but also potentially by the military space program and by private commercial space programs. The advantage of such a philosophy is that increased demand for common transport systems or components could reduce cost for everyone that utilizes such vehicles or components.

The deployment of space depots has been argued as another means for reducing the cost of space travel beyond LEO. And the development of reusable space craft that utilize in situ resources on the Moon or the asteroids has also been proposed as a way to reduce the cost of space travel.

But is there a way that NASA could cheaply incorporate all of these ideas? I believe the answer is yes!

The first step is to develop a simple shuttle derived core vehicle similar to that proposed by Boeing. The Boeing shuttle derived core vehicle could be utilized to transport humans into orbit without using solid rocket boosters (SRBs). But with SRBs, the Boeing core vehicle could be used as a heavy lift vehicle.

Boeing, however, advocates using four of the cheaper RS-68B engines for their crew launch vehicle concept while using the more fuel efficient RS-25E (disposable SSME) for the heavy lift vehicle. Man-rating the RS-68 rocket engines will probably increase the cost of these engines while making the RS-25 expendable will probably reduce their cost. Using the same engines in both the crew launch and the heavy lift vehicle will increase demand, further reducing production cost. So I advocate using the RS-25E in both the crew launch vehicle and the heavy lift vehicle.

Boeing also proposed using a stretched hypergolic fueled SM (Service Module), requiring an extra 8 to 9 metric tons of fuel in order for the crew launch vehicle to transport a 20 metric ton capsule and crew to LEO. The United Launch Alliance (ULA), however, has proposed using an ACES 41 as a LOX/LH2 fueled Service Module. Utilizing an ACES 41 SM with a shuttle derived crew launch booster which I'll call the SD-CV (shuttle derived core vehicle) could potentially lift more than 30 metric tons to LEO. Since the ULA plans to use the ACES 41 as a common upper stage for both the Atlas and the Delta IV, the high production demand for the ACES 41 by NASA and the ULA should help to reduce cost for the ACES 41.

SD-CV (Shuttle Derived Core Vehicle) and ULA's ACES 41 (credit ULA) concept used as a Service Module for an Orion capsule.

Boeing's heavy lift vehicle concept with an EDS could lift up to 120 metric tons to LEO while the crew vehicle could lift more than 30 metric tons to LEO (150 metric tons in combination). That's enough capacity to launch nearly 60 metric tons of payload to trans lunar injection or to the Earth-Lunar L1 Lagrange point.

The SD-HLV with an Altair lunar landing vehicle and the SD-CV with a Command Module (CM) and an ACES 41 Service Module (SM).

An SD-CV crew vehicle with the ability to launch over 30 metric tons into orbit would also give it approximately the same capabilities as the current space shuttle with the exception of not being able to return large payloads back to Earth. But the SD-CV should be substantially cheaper to operate than the shuttle since it does not require SRBs. The SD-CV could also be one of the safest manned launch vehicles ever developed since it would only have two stages, with each stage having multiple engines capable of supplementing a failed engine in both stages. Being hydrogen fueled would also make it potentially the greenest manned space vehicle ever developed. While a manned launched SD-HLV would still be safer than a space shuttle launch, the SD-CV should be equally as safe as a man rated Atlas V-401 and a substantially safer vehicle than an SD-HLV, Delta IV heavy, or a Falcon 9 (the two stage Falcon 9 only has one engine for the upper stage so a single engine failure in the upper stage would terminate the mission).

Any space capsule chosen by NASA for the Orion CEV (Crew Exploratory Vehicle) should be able to be used by NASA and private industry on top of an ACES 41 which could be used by an Atlas V or a Delta IV heavy. Again, the higher the demand for a particular crew capsule, the lower the capsule's production cost will be.

An SD-HLV lunar mission would launch an Altair into Earth orbit for a rendezvous with a CM-SM-ACES 41, or it could use the Altair to transport unmanned payloads (lunar base modules, vehicles, oxygen factories, etc.) weighing more than 10 metric tons to the lunar surface.

Because of its large payload capacity, some might question the private commercial viability of the SD-CV as a crew launcher against much smaller potentially manned rated launch vehicles like the Atlas 5 and the Falcon 9. However, if a payload carrier is placed between the command module and the service module, the shuttle derived crew carrier could also transport and additional 20 metric tons of cargo to LEO. While the space shuttle is banned from carrying commercial loads into orbit, a private commercial company would have no such restrictions!

SD-CV could be launched into to orbit for a rendezvous with the Altair for a lunar mission or it could be used to transports crew and cargo to the ISS or to private commercial space stations.

There are two principal options for the EDS (Earth Departure Stage) for the unmanned heavy lift vehicle: one that uses a single JX-2 engine and one that uses multiple RL 10 engines. Since the ACES 41 in this concept and the Altair lunar lander would also use RL-10 engines, using RL-10s in the EDS, Service Module, and Altair lunar lander would obviously increase the demand for the RL-10 which should reduce the production cost for the engine.

After the Orion-CM-SM-ACES 41 docks with the Altair and EDS (Earth Departure Stage), the EDS provides most of the delta-v for transferring the Altair and the Orion to the L1 Lagrange point.

The SM-ACES 41 provides the rest of the delta-v requirements for reaching L1 in addition to the delta-v for returning passengers to Earth. Limiting the Orion CM-SM-ACES 41 to L1 would substantially reduce the delta-v requirements for a lunar mission.

The single stage Altar vehicle would transport up to three metric tonnes of payload (crew transport module, cargo, and crew) from L1 to the lunar surface and back to L1. L1 departure for the Altair vehicle enhances the ability of the lunar lander to conveniently land at practically any point on the lunar surface.

The Altair lunar landing vehicle was originally proposed to have a LOX/LH2 descent stage and a hypergolic fueled ascent stage. However, there is no reason why a lunar landing vehicle can't be a single stage vehicle by simply using the descent stage to land and lift a small crew module weighing about 3 metric tons with four passengers and payload. This would mean that NASA would only have to develop one lunar vehicle instead of two, substantially reducing development cost. Plus the Altair descent stage would use an RL-10 engine which would further reduce the cost of the RL-10 engine used by both NASA and the ULA.

A single stage Altair vehicle with a crew transport module would be much cheaper to develop than the two stage Altair concept that uses both a LOX/LH2 descent stage and a hypergolic fueled ascent stage. For long term missions to a lunar base facility, a simple light weight aluminum sun shade could be used to cover and shield the vehicle from direct sunlight on the lunar surface in order to reduce hydrogen and oxygen fuel boil-off.

Any Moon base program that involves the production of oxygen and even hydrogen from lunar resources would have a dramatic effect on reducing the cost of space travel within cis-lunar space. Without the need for a vehicle to carry oxygen and hydrogen fuel to the lunar surface for its eventual return to orbit, manned missions to a lunar base could carry several metric tons of additional cargo plus additional passengers to the lunar surface instead of just a few hundred kilograms with crew as currently envisioned by the Constellation program. Lunar oxygen and hydrogen could also allow an Altair to be used as a reusable manned vehicle operating from the lunar surface to lunar orbit or from the lunar surface to L1.

A reusable single stage Altair crew transport vehicle could be fueled with oxygen and hydrogen from an L1 space depot for transporting passenger to the Moon and with in situ oxygen and hydrogen from the lunar surface for returning passengers to L1 requiring a much smaller vehicle that simply uses shorter cryogenic 0xygen and hydrogen fuel tanks.

A stretched Altair vehicle, using longer hydrogen and oxygen fuel tanks, combined with an ACES 41 tanker could be used to supply an L1 depot with oxygen and hydrogen produced on the lunar surface. Such a tanker could also be used to supply lunar bases not located near the poles with hydrogen.

So some day a paying tourist or a lunar lotto winner aboard a Falcon 9, Atlas V, Delta IV heavy, or a SD-CV could simply fly into orbit and dock with another ACES 41 (originally fueled with lunar oxygen and hydrogen at an L1 space depot) to travel to L1. At the Lagrange point, passengers would dock with an L1 fueled reusable Altair vehicle which would transport them to the Moon where they could perhaps stay at an appropriately mass shielded a Bigelow lunar hotel. The same lunar vehicle could be refueled with lunar oxygen and hydrogen for the tourist's return to L1 where they would dock with a CM-SM-ACES 41 equipped with an aerobreaking hypercone that would take them back to Earth orbit. There they would dock with a space capsule or Dreamchaser space plane that would finally return them to the Earth. That might be a very interesting vacation perhaps 15 or 20 years from now!

References and Links

1. Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion Systems (Boeing Phantom Works)

2. Ambitious Ares Test Flight Proposed for HLV Demonstration

3. NASA Heavy Lift and Propulsion Trade Study

4. Completed SD HLV assessment highlights low-cost post-shuttle solution

5. ULA: Upper Stage Evolution

6. A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture

7. National Launch System

8. DIRECT

9. Boeing's New HLV Concept could be the DC-3 of Manned Rocket Boosters

10. No time for NASA complacency on crew safety

11. All of a Sudden, Everyone Wants to Be a Rocket Scientist

12. PWR Offers Shuttle Engine Alternative

Boeing's New HLV Concept could be the DC-3 of Manned Rocket Boosters

by Marcel F. Williams

On December 17th 1935, the Douglas Aircraft Company introduced an new airplane that revolutionized commercial air travel in America and around the world, the DC-3. Before the introduction of the DC-3, transcontinental flights entailed short range flights in smaller aircraft during the day combined with rail travel during the night. The DC-3, on the other hand, was able to cross the American continent completely by air with just three fueling stops and could take passengers from one coastline to the other in less than 18 hours. More than 16,000 DC-3s were built during its history. And 400 DC-3s are still in operation today!

Boeing Phantom Works has introduced a new shuttle derived heavy lift concept that is very similar to the DIRECT concept. An inline 8.4 meter in diameter core vehicle is used with either SSME (space shuttle main engines) or RS-68 engines. But instead of using the existing 4-segment SRBs (solid rocket boosters), there vehicle would use the 5-segment SRBs that are currently being developed for the Ares I rocket, a program that President Obama intends to terminate. However, unlike the DIRECT concept, Boeing has also proposed utilizing the inline booster without the SRBs as a crew only vehicle. Coupled with a manned space capsule and a stretched SM (service module), there would be no upper stage. And this would require the service module to perform the 2nd stage burn in order to achieve orbit.

NASA has recently (May 3rd) issued a request for information regarding potential heavy lift architectures that could be utilized by both NASA and commercial industries. Boeing's new heavy lift concept would seem to meet that criteria. With the SRBs and an upper stage, the core stage could be used by NASA or the DOD to lift up to 113 tons into low Earth orbit or send up to 45 tons to TLI (translunar injection). A dual launch scenario could transport up to 87 tons to TLI, a substantial increase over the 65 tons sent to TLI using the Ares I/V architecture.

But, additionally, without the SRBs and the upper stage, the LOX/LH2 core booster could be used by NASA, the military, or a private commercial company to transport up to 20 metric tons into orbit when utilizing a stretched SM (service module) to perform the second stage burn to achieve orbit. Such a hydrogen-oxygen fueled single stage booster could provide NASA and private industry with the simplest, safest, and most environmentally benign manned space rocket ever invented. And such a vehicle could usher in a new wave of space tourism!

There are polls that suggest that there may be thousands of wealthy individuals that would be willing to pay $20 million or more to fly into space to a space station. If such polls are even close to being accurate then manned launches for space tourism could greatly exceed government commissioned manned spaceflights to orbit with possible annual demands for space launches in the hundreds.

Such a high level of traffic into space would require the manufacturing of several hundred rocket engines every year. And such a high demand for rocket engines could introduce the serial mass production of rocket engines into US industries. Economies of mass production could substantially reduce the cost of rocket engines in the US. And polls have shown that lowering the cost of space travel would increase the demand for space tourism even higher!

A NASA heavy lift vehicle based on the same core vehicle would of course greatly benefit from the lower cost due to the high demand for the core booster by private industry. Eventually, the low cost of the core vehicle might become so attractive that NASA might contemplate replacing the SRBs with two additional core vehicles for heavy lift launches in a configuration similar to what is seen with the Delta IV heavy. This would be similar to one of the National Launch System (NLS) proposals of the 1990s.

It is also interesting that Boeing Phantom Works also produces the unmanned reusable X-37 experimental spaceplane for the US military which is currently in orbit after being launched into orbit by the ULA on top of an Atlas V rocket. Although the X-37 weighs about 5 metric tons, it has the basic Space Shuttle configuration. It uses a Rocketdyne AR-2/3 rocket engine, fuelled by JP-8 jet fuel and hydrogen peroxide. If Boeing decided to build a larger-- man rated-- version of the X-37, it could be the perfect compliment for the shuttle derived core vehicle also proposed by Boeing.


So America might retire one winged space vehicle, the space shuttle, while introducing a new winged manned space vehicle that can be used by NASA, the military, and private commercial industry. And a new era of manned space travel for government and private industry will have begun!

References and Links

1. Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion Systems (Boeing Phantom Works)

2. Ambitious Ares Test Flight Proposed for HLV Demostration

3. NASA Heavy Lift and Propulsion Trade Study

4. X-37 Orbital Test Vehicle

5. Boeing X-37

6. Space Commercialization and the Lunar Lotto

7. National Launch System

8. DIRECT

The Future of America's Space Program

Credit NASA

by Marcel F. Williams


The US manned space program is the ultimate symbol of American progress and technological prominence. Unfortunately, the US is rapidly approaching a situation where Americans may have no domestic manned access to space for nearly decade! Meanwhile, China is expected to launch the first components of their military space station into orbit before the end of the year.

A year from now, many Americans who usually don't pay much attention to the manned space program are probably going to be shocked to discover that while Russia and China are launching their cosmonauts and taikonauts into space, the US will have to spend tax payer dollars to pay the Russians in order for our astronauts to reach the predominantly US funded International Space Station.

And this will probably also surprise a lot of people out side of the US. America is already perceived by growing numbers around the world as a declining political and economic  power. This perception will only be enhanced if the US has no domestic manned space flight capability for several years which will  further reduce America's prestige and influence around the world.


How the US reached this situation is both technological and political. In 1991, President   George H. W. Bush authorized a National Launch Systems (NLS) study to outline alternatives to the shuttle. One of the interesting options was a NLS 2 configuration which converted the space shuttle external tank into a rocket booster capable of launching 23 metric tonne manned and unmanned payloads to LEO.  A second concept, NLS 1,  added the space shuttles two 4-segment rocket boosters which would enable it to carry about 68 metric tonnes into orbit.  Today, the NLS 1 concept is currently known as the DIRECT concept and is one of the directly shuttle derived HLV concepts advocated by the Augustine commission.  Unfortunately,  President Bush senior's National Launch System was never acted upon.

In  1996, the highly complex SSTO  X-33 Venture Star was proposed as a  replacement for the current space shuttle program by the Clinton administration over an equally innovative but  much less complex SSTO Delta Clipper design. The Venture Star was also to operate through commercial means with NASA only purchasing launches through a commercial provider. Unfortunately, due the complexities of the design, construction of a Venture Star prototype was halted by the Clinton Administration in 1999 and finally canceled by the Bush administration in 2001. It was not until after 2004, when President George W. Bush  announced his Vision for Space Exploration, that  the Ares 1, was eventually proposed as another space shuttle successor.  However,  the Ares 1 was to be part of a larger program to return America to the Moon and would also require the development of a new heavy lift vehicle and lunar landing vehicle. This program was eventually named the  Constellation program.  

Now, six years later, when the current space shuttle fleet is scheduled to be decommissioned after 2010, there is some question as to the viability and expense of developing the Ares 1.  Additionally,   practically all of NASA's Constellation development money has gone into funding the Ares I and the the Orion-CEV while virtually no funds have been utilized for the development of the Constellation program's  heavy lift vehicle, EDS (Earth Departure Stage), or Altair lunar lander.

One  Augustine commission has suggestion is  that NASA should utilize its funds to focus on developing a heavy lift vehicle instead of the Ares I while-- simply-- allow the commercial industry to develop rockets and infrastructure for manned access to LEO.   The fact that there is currently no private commercial space flight industry in the US didn't seem to concern the commission. 

Currently only three government space agencies have the ability to launch and return humans to and from space: the US, Russia, and China. In America's  48 year history of human space flight, they have had 153 successful manned space flights and two fatal accidents [Space Shuttle Challenger (1986), Space Shuttle Columbia (2003)]. The Russians have had 120 successful space flights with  two fatal  accidents in 1967 and in 1971. China has been very cautious in its emerging manned space efforts-- only launching three manned flights into orbit since 2003.

How safe and reliable private commercial manned space flight companies will be is still an unknown. Space X appears to be the only private company close to developing a manned space flight capability-- principally by emulating the basic space craft designs that government space programs achieved back in the 1960s.  So far it has a 60% success ratio as far as it unmanned launches. Still it has plans to attempt to launch humans into orbit sometime during the next decade. Boeing has recently announced that it will join the Bigelow aerospace company in attempting to build a manned space flight capability. How much money a company like Boeing is willing to risk in such a venture should be interesting.

Alternatively, directly shuttle derived rocket designs have once again been proposed that can function as dual purpose vehicles that can launch the new Orion vehicle to LEO or to the Moon with an EDS stage.  The Augustine commission has argued that developing the directly shuttle derived rocket boosters could also allow the current space shuttle program to be extended for at least another four years.

NASA is currently spending over $3.4 billion a year on the Constellation program. However, the Obama administration increased the NASA budget by over $900 million for the year 2010, which may perhaps allow $4.2 billion a year in Constellation funding. There are rumors that President Obama may raise the NASA budget an additional $1 billion after he finally announces his agenda for the the US manned space program. And this  could give the program $5.2 billion in annual development funding.

If the $3 billion a year Shuttle program is not canceled then that would leave the Constellation program with only $4.2 to $5.2 billion a year in funding.  There is the possibility, however, the continuing the shuttle program may only cost $2.5 billion a year.  An extra $500 million a year for the Constellation program wouldn't be something to sneeze at.  The Orion-CEV is going to cost  $1.8 billion a year for at least 5 years plus until it is completed. Program operations and integration may add an additional $1.5 billion annually during the same time period. That leaves only $900 million to $1.9 billion a year for other Constellation expenditures. However, if the Ares I development is canceled, then that leaves us with an additional $1.9 to $2.9 billion a year.

 NASA has argued that their directly shuttle derived HLV could be developed for $6.9 billion while proponents of the DIRECT concept have argued that their basic HLV would cost $8.3 billion. NASA has also determined that the cost to develop an EDS stage would cost $2.5 billion and the Altair lunar lander, $4.1 billion.  The development of a  DIRECT HLV plus EDS and Altair vehicle would therefore cost about $14.9 billion in total. At $1.9 billion a year, over $14.9 billion in funding would it would take nearly 8 years to completely fund such a program. At $2.9 billion a year, these other Constellation programs could be fully funded in less than 6 years. And if there are any delays in any component of the program, then an additional $4.2 to $5.2 billion would be available for every year that program development continues.

However, once the new space vehicles and infrastructure are fully developed, then NASA should have at least $7.2 to $8.2 billion to run its lunar base program plus $2 billion to runs its space station program.

Development of the Ares I/V architectures is much more expensive and takes a lot longer to develop since full funding for the Ares V, EDS, and Altair vehicles doesn't take place until Ares I development is completed.  However, by fully funding all the Constellation components simultaneously for the directly shuttle derived scenario, the new space vehicles and infrastructure could be ready in less than a decade.

So my advice to President Obama on his upcoming decision on the future of NASA is to:

1. Increase the NASA budget while keeping the Space Shuttle program going after 2010 until the successor shuttle craft is ready (It will be one of the best domestic and international political investments your administration has ever made!)

2. Cancel the Ares I/V program!  Its way too expensive and takes too long to develop

3. Continue the development of the Orion-CEV

4. Choose one of the Directly Shuttle derived concepts (Sidemount or DIRECT) that can be utilized for both the Orion missions to  LEO and the ISS  and Orion/Altair missions to the Moon.

5. Start fully funding  EDS and Altair development immediately along with lunar base modules and other lunar base components. Establishing the first permanent human presence on the surface of another world will be one of the most important developments in the history of humanity that will be remembered for centuries if not millennia by human civilizations both on the Earth and far beyond ! 

Links and References

National Launch System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Launch_System#cite_note-lyons-2

Human Spaceflight Plans Committee Report
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/meetings/10_22_pressconference.html

Obama's NASA Decision

by Marcel F. Williams

The Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee (the Augustine Commission) recently concluded that NASA's Constellation return to the Moon program is running $50 billion over the current budget through the year 2020. They also concluded that cheaper alternatives such as the NASA's Side-mount shuttle and the DIRECT concept would also exceed NASA's budget by at least $20 billion to $30 billion.

So it appears that the Augustine commission will recommend a $3 billion dollar increase to NASA's annual budget if the US is to return to the Moon or a termination of the Moon program in order to stay within NASA's current $17 billion dollar a year budget.

So what should President Obama do?

At the height of the Apollo program, the NASA budget reached $33 billion a year in today's dollars, nearly twice as large as NASA current budget. NASA's $17 billion annual budget represents less 0.6% of the total Federal budget while the US Federal government is spending nearly a trillion dollars annually on defense related purposes. So a $3 billion annual increase to the NASA budget would be extremely tiny relative to the overall Federal budget.

I believe that President Obama needs to raise the NASA budget while also choosing the fastest and the cheapest return to the Moon architecture. That's why President Obama needs to raise the annual NASA budget by at least $3 billion while choosing NASA's SD-HLV (Side-mount shuttle) concept in order to return to the Moon to set up a permanently manned lunar facility.

Terminating funding for the Ares 1 combined with a $3 billion annual increase should give NASA an extra $4 billion dollars a year to work with without immediately terminating the current Space Shuttle program or the ISS.

At least $700 million of that should go to finance the development the Orion (CEV) over the next 5 years which is currently being funded at nearly $1.4 billion a year. That would raise Orion funding to $2.1 billion a year over the next 5 years.

NASA has preliminarily estimated that the cost of developing the SD-HLV vehicles should cost $6.6 billion and could be ready for full testing in 4 and a half years. So 1.5 billion a year over the next 5 years should be more than enough to develop the SD-HLV vehicles.

That leaves another 1.8 billion a year to immediately start funding the development of the Altair lunar landing vehicle over the next 5 or 6 years so that America could be ready to return to the Moon by 2016. Why wait until 2020 to return to the Moon when the shuttle derived heavy lift vehicles could be ready by 2015 or 2016?

Additional funds for the development of the Moon program could be garnered by terminating the Space Shuttle program and US ISS involvement a year or more before the Orion-HLV and Altair-HLV space craft are ready. That would be $5 billion in additional funds if both the Shuttle and the ISS were terminated a year early and $10 billion if they were terminated two years early.

2016 should also be a time when NASA should have plenty of extra funds from both the termination of the Space Shuttle and ISS programs and from the completion of the Orion, Altair, and SD-HLV development programs: plenty of money for a continuously growing lunar base program and beyond.

The US space program has always been the ultimate symbol of America's scientific and technological achievement. And NASA has contributed far more to the economic wealth of the US than it has consumed. The expansion of humans into the rest of the solar system is essential to the long term survival our species and towards the continued economic growth of human civilization. That's why President Barack Obama needs to strongly commit the US towards leading that expansion of humanity into the New Frontier.

1. Augustine Commission
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2009/08/augustine-commission-recommends-that.html

2. NASAs-Ares-Alternative:-The-Side-mount-Shuttle

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/16/753191/-NASAs-Ares-Alternative:-The-Side-mount-Shuttle

3. Robots could build a base on the Moon

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/19/733423/-Robots-Could-Build-a-Base-on-the-Moon

© Marcel F. Williams
New Papyrus

The Ares Alternative - Part 2: John Shannon's Side-mount shuttle presentation to the Augustine Commission

U.S. Human Space Flight Committee-Washington, DC Part 7 from U.S. HSF Committee on Vimeo.

A pdf slide show related to this Augustine Committee video can be found at the following URL:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361842main_15%20-%20Augustine%20Sidemount%20Final.pdf

SPACE FRONTIER

U.S. Air Force Space Plane to launch next April
November 27, 2009

Ares vs the Sidemount and the Augustine Commission
November 5, 2009

Sea Launch History
October 30, 2009

Lunar Regolith Excavation
October 21, 2009

Stephen Hawking calls for massive investment in lunar and Martian Colonization
September 27, 2009

Funding NASA's Future
September 24, 2009

Ice on the Moon?
September 17, 2009

Colonizing the Moon
August 27, 2009

Obama's NASA Decision
August 20, 2009

Augustine Commission Recommends that NASA Focus on Space Colonization

The Sputnik Moment
August 6, 2009

The Moon Box

APOLLO 11

The Ares Alternative

The Ares Alternative - Part 2: John Shannon's Side...

Why Mars?
June 6, 2009

The Ares V - Super Rocket
May 29, 2009

Robots Could Build a Base on the Moon
May 18, 2009

When Worlds Collide
March 12, 2009

Resurrecting the Delta Clipper
March 6, 2009

Mining the Moons of Mars
January 3, 2009