Space Transportation - mmmt_transportation.pdf - Moon Society

MMM #59 - October 1992
NASA’s Explanation of Why it Throws Away
the Shuttle External Tank in each and every Mission:
[Ernie Bergman, a long time MMM subscriber and supporter, and a co-founder of the Greater Detroit Space Society,
wrote U.S. Senator John Seymour (MI) to complain of NASA policy and Congressional indifference with the respect to
the continued “wasting” of a potentially significant “bootstrap” resource, namely the Shuttle ET. Ernie mentioned that
there were already a number of well-thought out plans to use the ET.
Seymour passed on this letter to NASA and the letter printed below outlines NASA’s reasoning. Thanks, Ernie!]
Thank you for your May 9, 1992 letter on behalf of Mr. Ernest Bergman who suggested that NASA use
expended, retrofitted Space Shuttle External Tanks (ETs) as a Space Station.
NASA has no plans to adapt expended ETs for use in the Space Station Freedom program. In the early planning
phases of the program, NASA considered the use of ETs as potential building blocks for a Space Station. Based on a
thorough assessment, the idea was rejected for several reasons. For example,
[√] the very large size of the ET exceeds NASA’s resource capability to outfit it with the equipment necessary for
electric power, life support, stabilization, and instrumentation. Further,
[√] due to limited ground-to-orbit lift capability, the ET would have to be outfitted on orbit. In addition,
[√] it would be technically difficult to purge the volatile material from the tank and modify the internal structure so
that it could be effectively used.
[√] Maintaining the tank’s stability during this activity would be very difficult to accomplish.
The current restructured Space Station Freedom design using a truss and modular design approach offers
[√] a flexibility that would not be possible with a Space Station constructed from ETs. Our design will allow for
additional modules to be incorporated into the structure as future needs and resources dictate.
Martin P. Kress, Assistant [NASA] Administrator for Legislative Affairs
[EDITOR’s COMMENT: Senator Seymour accepted NASA’s response without question and this helps illustrate what we
are up against politically. Fortunately, commercial endeavors need not be bound by such defeatism and sheepish
resignation.
Where there’s a will, there may or may not be a way. It’s certain, though, that when there’s no will, there is no
way. NASA is poorly motivated to use the ET resource and thus it should not be surprising that the Agency has gone
through only the first half of the brainstorming process. It has ferreted out all the reasons why something won’t work.
Full stop. But then you’re supposed to creatively brainstorm all the ways you are going to [stress on determination]
“make it work anyway”.
In fact, all of NASA’s objections can be met - or shown to be irrelevant. Without going into the debate point by
point, let’s simply escape its terms by changing the rules. If it is in fact too difficult to retrofit a “wet” ET “in orbit”, we
can nonetheless alter the standard mission profile so as to save them in orbital “reservations”, parking them in a high
enough warehousing orbit until the day we do have the capacity to remodel them, or mine them for their aluminum
and copper.
Meanwhile, it IS possible to build ET-hulled modules fully outfitted on the ground, and launch them
ready to occupy and connect to auxiliary trusses etc. In the most imaginative piece* of ET-Brainstorming we’ve seen
13