THE ATK WIRE:
ATK had Lunar Surface Activiy Module and Earth Departure System defined at 120 tons, and these have to be joint launched. These requirements were fed into the systems office, resulting in an analysis claiming that 9 EELVs would be required per manned lunar mission.

THE POLITICAL CALCULUS:

Is the nation willing to pay to develop another launch services provider?
Congressmen and Senators representing shuttle manufacturing districts in favor,
Congressmen and Senators representing current EELV manufacturing districts opposed,
Congressmen and Senators representing everyone else opposed
to NASA wasting more of their money on flags and footprints.

DoD indifferent, but there is unlikely to be enough other demand (including commercial) to support 3 lunch vehicle manufacturing lines.

Shuttle derived Launch Vehicles may be cheaper for servicing station.

INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION:

CEV - four person crew- someone appearently imagines that Russia, Japan and Europe will simply buy seats from US. Not ef***ing likely. Proposed Lunar Surface Activity Module also designed for crew of 4.

THE STATED GOALS:

"Our target, in the 2018 timeframe, is to make the seventh human lunar landing,” Shank said, alluding to the six landings that took place under the Apollo program. Future human missions, he said, would follow to gradually build up a permanent outpost.

2 missions per year - one can easily work out the ATK revenue stream from this: it's the same as now with the shuttle

each mission 4 times Apollo - about 8 working days each

Shank states long term goal to be south pole outpost.

BUT ATK Lunar Surface Activity Module is a dead end - there is no mobility, no cargo capability, and neither mobile vehicles nor contruction equipement nor modules nor module delivery system are described.

Question: "If your first lunar landing looks to much like Apollo then the public and Congress won't be very impressed that it took 50 years to do what we already did.

Answer: "We have had that debate but we're not ready to do that planning."

THE BOTTOM LINE RIGHT NOW:

No nation is willing to pay for flags and footsteps. As Shank put it "We’ve run the numbers, the budget numbers, and we can’t afford this plan—we simply can’t—if we follow the business-as-usual approach.”

Shank said, "Boy, those guys from Apollo were really smart,” but perhaps this is just a case where the system engineers NASA is currently using to do this work are really dumb.

HOPE FOR THE FUTURE:

Griffin: "In the past we've often been accused of bringing in the solution with no other options, and I am trying hard to get away from that. There are numerous stakeholders, and I want to play fair with all of them. I'm not going to go out with an uncoordinated NASA position."

Description LEO capability $Price diameter

ATK SHUTTLE DERIVED LAUNCH VEHICLES:

Stick- 5 segment SRBs Unkown
Important: 2cd stage from Lockheed
Lockheed told by ATK that 2cd stage would be used for LOI;
ATK lied to Lockheed (see architecture below)
High Center of gravity could lead to control problems

Inline- 2x5 segment SRBs, stretched ET 100 tons Unknown 8.7m
pod mounted SSMEs
+2cd stage 120 tons
unknown if stretched ET can support loads

Side Mount - 2x5 segment SRBs, stretched ET 90 tons Unknown 8.7m
pod mounted SSMEs

THE ATK WIRE: THEIR PROPOSEDF ARCHITECTURE

1) launch unpiloted Lunar Surface Activity Module and Earth Departure System on
inline Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle (ET + 5-segment SRBs + 2nd stage - 120-tons to LEO)

2) launch piloted Crew Exucrsion Vehicle on 4-segment SRB + second stage

3) dock Crew Excursion Vehicle with Lunar Surface Activity Module and Earth Departure System

4) use Earth Departure System for Trans-Lunar Insertion

5) use Earth Departure System for Lunar Orbit Insertion? (not clear on this point)

6) entire crew lands on moon in Lunar Surface Activity Module,
leaving Crew Excursion Vehicle unpiloted in lunar orbit

7) Lunar Surface Activity Module lifts off, docks with Crew Excursion Vehicle in lunar orbit

8) Lunar Surface Activity Module discarded - The completely wasted masses of the Lunar Surface Activity Modules (2 per year) demonstrate the complete waste of the ATK architecture. NO one is going to pay for this, and no foreign nation is going to buy seats, wehn they could be spending their money developing their own technology.

9) Crew Excursion Vehicle performs Trans-Earth Injection

10) Crew Excursion Vehicle performs direct entry and landing

B-TEAM ACTIVITIES:

LOCK-MART:

learned of ATK architecture through
2cd stage work with ATK, but lied to? (above)

Atlas 6
2 x RD180s per unit
3 Cluster 68 tons Unknown 5.4m
4-5 Cluster 135 tons Unknown 5.4m

BOEING:
Other sources to (via Leonard David?)report 3 manned CEV, 6 "flights" per year (6 launches of launch vehicles). Apparently still thinking about 3 man CEV, blind or indifferent as to what is going on.

THE DEAL IS ALREADY DONE:

"Griffin said he told [AF] Lord that NASA would be willing to switch to the medium-lift variants of the EELVs to loft its science spacecraft, “provided that there is not an undue financial penalty for NASA. That might spell the end of Boeing's smaller Delta 2"

Shutting down the Delta 2 manufacturing line probably is a good idea. It has no customers aside from NASA. Guess: Boeing is being offfered "science" paylaods for Delta IV as a consolation for losing the VSE. ATK offering to stay out of comsat and DoD markets, not to compete.

6 Cluster Delta IV
problems with plume impingement on launch
need to construct new deeper launch pit

THE TRUE LOOSERS HERE:

The people of the country, whose need for protection against impact NASA again ignored.
The architecture never made it to Langley, where the engineers could have shot it full of holes.
That's because its political engineering.