Re: NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture
Joe Strout
"AA Institute" <abdul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> NASA today unveiled an ambitious blueprint
Well, I guess opinions on that may vary.
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| j...@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
Alex Terrell
Joe Strout wrote:
> In article <1127161890.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> "AA Institute" <abdul...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > NASA today unveiled an ambitious blueprint
>
> Well, I guess opinions on that may vary.
>
Kennedy to say by the end of decade - rather, we'll put some men on the
moon, when we get round to it.
With no plans for a moonbase, I'm struggling to see the point of all
this. And the architecture is about 50% more expensive than it ought to
be.
Rand Simberg
Terrell" <alext...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> > NASA today unveiled an ambitious blueprint
>>
>> Well, I guess opinions on that may vary.
>>
>I thought I was seeing the history channel - except there was no
>Kennedy to say by the end of decade - rather, we'll put some men on the
>moon, when we get round to it.
>
>With no plans for a moonbase, I'm struggling to see the point of all
>this. And the architecture is about 50% more expensive than it ought to
>be.
OK, is anyone other than NASA fanboys here actually excited about this
plan?
pari...@gmail.com
it had in 1972.
Rene Altena
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:43425d7f...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
I wonder why it would take until 2018 to get somebody up there. With this
technology (the first rocket looks more like a Saturn rocket and the other
one more like an Ariane 5 !) it should not take that long!
Rene
Ed Kyle
I think it provides a good roadmap for NASA to follow for
the next how-ever-many years. It is a great improvement
to the space shuttle era NASA framework.
This is a plan that could very well, over time, lead to a
smaller, more focused NASA. It is a plan that produces
something useful in the near-term - the CEV and CLV tools
that will replace shuttle and could by themselves, in
concert with commercial launch services and international
space station partners, serve as the framework for a long-
term human space program. It also lays out longer term
plans and goals (the Moon, Mars maybe but not probably) that
could happen, or not, depending on national priorities down
the road.
- Ed Kyle
AA Institute
astronauts to the moon by 2018 using new rockets based on shuttle
propulsion technology and a new reusable crew vehicle Administrator
Mike Griffin described as "Apollo on steroids."
Full story:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/19exploration/
AA
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.publishedauthors.net/aa_spaceagent/
"The ultimate dream adventure awaiting humanity..."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Terrell
pari...@gmail.com wrote:
> The bottom line is : let s give back to NASA in 2018 the capabilities
> it had in 1972.
Not quite. In 1972 NASA could do a moon landing with a single launch.
The new scheme will require two launches of two different, specially
designed rockets.
This should provide good employment opportunities for rocket designers.
Rand Simberg
<edky...@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>> OK, is anyone other than NASA fanboys here actually excited about this
>> plan?
>
>I think it provides a good roadmap for NASA to follow for
>the next how-ever-many years. It is a great improvement
>to the space shuttle era NASA framework.
>
>This is a plan that could very well, over time, lead to a
>smaller, more focused NASA.
More focused, certainly, but with the increasing budget, and the
predilection to do more in house and less contracting, how is it
smaller?
>It is a plan that produces
>something useful in the near-term - the CEV and CLV tools
>that will replace shuttle and could by themselves, in
>concert with commercial launch services and international
>space station partners, serve as the framework for a long-
>term human space program.
For exactly the same (or more) cost as the Shuttle program.
Brian Thorn
<pa2ra-v...@amsat.org> wrote:
>I wonder why it would take until 2018 to get somebody up there.
Because for the next five years, the lion's share of the NASA manned
spaceflight budget is going to Shuttle and Station, and for five years
after that, a smaller, but still large chunk goes to Station alone.
Only after 2015 do we get out of the Shuttle/Station funding black
hole.
Brian
Alex Terrell
Ed Kyle wrote:
> I think it provides a good roadmap for NASA to follow for
> the next how-ever-many years. It is a great improvement
> to the space shuttle era NASA framework.
In short, it's not as disastrous as the previuos (Shuttle) strategy.
> This is a plan that could very well, over time, lead to a
> smaller, more focused NASA. It is a plan that produces
> something useful in the near-term - the CEV and CLV tools
> that will replace shuttle and could by themselves, in
> concert with commercial launch services and international
> space station partners, serve as the framework for a long-
> term human space program. It also lays out longer term
> plans and goals (the Moon, Mars maybe but not probably) that
> could happen, or not, depending on national priorities down
> the road.
How are the CLV tools useful in near-term?
Even the CEV is gross overkill in the near term, if it's just going to
fly to ISS. So as well as recreating Apollo, NASA's going to recreate
Soyuz.
dasun
it finally gets the show on the road - providing the politicians do not
get stuck into it.
Given financial & political realities this is the best we could have
hoped for. See it for what it is - a starting point that gives an
industrial and experience base for grander journeys in the future. As
someone who just remembers Armstrong taking his first step I would love
to have seen a more definitive Mars direction but I am just glad that a
window beyond LEO has finally opened let us hope the politicians do not
close it.
AS for the stick and using shuttle hardware, well why not? At least it
is a known and I have little faith in brand new systems and even
smaller faith in the nascent commercial space industry being able to
deliver on their promises.
AA Institute
Hey I am excited that there is *a* plan for going back to the Moon...
and we've just heard it from the horse's mouth!!!
That there is still a *will* and some thoughts around the *means* for
humans going back to the Moon within my lifetime is, in itself, the
most marvellous and most satifying thing I've heard in the past few
years...
AA
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.publishedauthors.net/aa_spaceagent/
"The ultimate dream adventure awaiting humanity..."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Strout
"dasun" <david....@amsa.gov.au> wrote:
> Given financial & political realities this is the best we could have
> hoped for.
Since it's what we actually got, this statement is true by tautology,
but that's hardly comforting. I actually hoped for much better.
> See it for what it is - a starting point that gives an
> industrial and experience base for grander journeys in the future.
I think it gives the wrong kind of experience base for any grander
journeys.
> As someone who just remembers Armstrong taking his first step I would love
> to have seen a more definitive Mars direction but I am just glad that a
> window beyond LEO has finally opened let us hope the politicians do not
> close it.
Actually, the lack of any focus on Mars is the one good thing about the
plan; to attempt to put flags and footprints on Mars would have been an
even more colossal waste.
> AS for the stick and using shuttle hardware, well why not?
Because it is far too expensive. It makes any real progress with it
untenable. Yet, supported by taxes, it competes with commercial
providers who could do the same work for much lower real costs, and at
the same time open up space for the rest of us.
> At least it
> is a known and I have little faith in brand new systems and even
> smaller faith in the nascent commercial space industry being able to
> deliver on their promises.
I find your lack of faith... disturbing.
mikharaki...@yahoo.com
So nothing happened in the space exploration area after moon landing?
Apparently, Pioner/Voyager and other space probes, Hubble don't count
to technological and science progress. It is Startrek future vision
that matters, right?
It looks like humans have less and less role in space exploration,
pretty obvious, isn't it? Let's be reasonable and adjust the goals to
conform the reality.
jonathan
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
> On 19 Sep 2005 15:08:09 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
> <edky...@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>
> >> OK, is anyone other than NASA fanboys here actually excited about this
> >> plan?
The weak link in this plan is the missing data in between the landing
and the blast off.
'Four astronauts then would fly to the moon and descend to the surface
in the lander for a one-week stay, leaving the CEV alone in orbit.
...............[What are they going to do on the Moon?].......
After completing their initial four-to-seven-day mission, the astronauts
would blast off, rendezvous with the CEV and return to a parachute
landing in the western United States."
I find that at best incompetent, and at worst suspicious.
Do they have some unspoken/military reason for doing this???
When a govt agency asks the taxpayers to shell out
a hundred billion, the first and obvious question is
...why. Nasa can't answer that question so the
response should be NO.
And with the next administration facing huge deficits this
plan seems dead-on-arrival to me.
dasun
much with most politicians and resonates little with the public -
unless they see amazing things. In the real world the budget
environment is very tight thus limiting what can be done, you want Moon
Bases, you want Mars now pony up the cash. If we wait for that sort of
money to materialise from reluctant politicians then manned exploration
beyond LEO is not going to happen. Take what Griffin is offering, I
seriously doubt much better could be proposed given NASA's current and
future budgets.
How in the hell is the experience base of operating in deep space on
another word the wrong kind of experience? After 30 years of LEO
practice and technology development is most certainly needed before we
venture much further.
Shuttle hardware is expensive, so is building whole new systems from
scratch but - I bet - even more so. Use what you know, build only what
you have to that would be my credo. Shuttle hardware provides
well-known systems, as the basis of heavy lift and crew transport and
that has to put the aerospace engineers ahead of the game. Think of
the entire support infrastructure - VAB, crawlers, pads - and it
already exists and just needs modifying. Think of the flight hardware
and it is the same modifying game.
As for commercial exploration beyond LEO, give me a reasonable business
plan that justifies that sort of expenditure, some things belong in the
realm of government - for a time at least. When I see commercial heavy
lift, and I mean 100+ tons, making a profit then I will believe! In
fact when I see a commercial orbital manned system actually working
then I will be much less sceptical of their claims. Space is hard and
expensive.
Finally, give some credit to Bush for enabling this point to be reached
and now the crossing of the Cassandra can now begin....
pari...@gmail.com
the fourth giant launcher of humankind...
pari...@gmail.com
Since the launcher exists, why not a single module, 100-ton class
commercial station.. ?
No costly assembly and with a 100 mass maybe you can keep the
consumable servicing to a minimum. Maybe build with ample design
margins and simple construction techniques.
Well : question, with the 125-t class launcher, assuming the Govt
builds two a year for its Moon missions, what else could be done ?
dasun
system reconnaissance BUT I studied computer science and geology and I
am very aware of robotic limitations. Robots are great for first
looks, but rate a very poor second to actually having trained observers
on the spot.
Take the wonderful mars rovers that have spent near 2 years on the
surface but have covered much less ground than Gene and Jack did in 3
days on Apollo 17. In field geology human observation and intuition
play a critical role, Jack saw some interesting orange soil and decided
to sample, and robots currently - and for a considerable time to come
will - lack the ability to function just this way. Doing science by
remote control is difficult and has some very real limitations.
dasun
subject!
Rand Simberg
<david....@amsa.gov.au> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>Science and lots of it, skip the political baloney and stick to the
>subject!
Science will never justify the vast amounts of money being spent on
human spaceflight, for good reason.
mikharaki...@yahoo.com
the Moore's law. And you are certainly aware of predictions that
computer would never play chess well enough. Which means that any
speculation about robot's future limited abilities is groundless.
I see nothing special about your yellow soil example. With digital cams
ever increasing abilities, in 10 years you will have a remote picture
that is indistingusheable from what human is able to see on the spot.
Some obscure geologist sitting in the comfort of his desktop and
watching the transmission over the internet would notice something
interesting. Then you can fund a new mission *for a fraction of manned
mission cost*.
Even more likely, the amount of transmitted data in 10 years from now
would be so huge, that you have to employ a very sophisticated data
mining technique, in order to extract some useful information. No way a
trained Joe Doe geologist could be able to do that on the spot. Yes,
unglorified astronouts are just expensive technicians.
dasun
science is what you do when you are there, along with all the house
keeping chores. Colonisation, if it happens at all, is generally not
what you do when you first arrive on a new world, as the history of
earth exploration will attest, first you look around and then you
decide where to stay and why and that may take decades or centuries.
In short science is a very useful activity to perform if you have
decided to go to new worlds in the first place. Besides, find a
politician that understands science!
dasun
soil (regolith on planetary bodies)! But to a geologist that could
mean regolith of volcanic origin and there was quite a "hot" debate
about possible lunar volcanism in the 1960's and 70's and that is what
made that observation so important. Take my word for it, for a
geologist there is nothing like being there and being able to get a
feel for the landscape and the forces that have acted upon it and no
high quality data link is ever going to be an effective substitute for
that feeling. Deep-sea geology is a good example, use robots to do
general surveying but send manned submersibles down to look at
interesting features.
Moore's law is great, but can it go on forever? How long before we
can build artificial intelligence as good as our own? What about the
reasons for heading up, after all planetary disasters do happen and
colonising other worlds is the best long-term bet for our species. Do
not let your faith in technology blind you to much as the future seldom
turns out as one expects - just ask the Apollo guys of the 1960's (one
of whom was a geologist - namely Jack Schmidt (spelling?) - and the
rest did extensive geological training and mostly functioned quite
well).
mikharaki...@yahoo.com
don't have to climb to the observation dome and spend a cold night
there anymore. You rely on the data collected automatically.
There is number factor as well. Compare a 1000 geologists investigating
phenomenon remotely, versus one of the spot. Given adequate quality of
remote observation, it is more likely that some of those 1000
geologists would find something interesting, that would escape the guy
on the spot.
dasun wrote:
> Moore's law is great, but can it go on forever? How long before we
> can build artificial intelligence as good as our own? What about the
Given the average intelligence of the average Usenet poster, I bet that
within 10 years we'll have Usenet bots indistingusheable of humans.
> What about the
> reasons for heading up, after all planetary disasters do happen and
> colonising other worlds is the best long-term bet for our species.
Yes, but you have to approach it with rational thinking. How much a
trip to mars costs? It will be such for a long time, if we continue
rely on chemical propulsion engines. Wasting $100B on reincarnated moon
landing problem solves nothing.
Paul F. Dietz
> There is number factor as well. Compare a 1000 geologists investigating
> phenomenon remotely, versus one of the spot. Given adequate quality of
> remote observation, it is more likely that some of those 1000
> geologists would find something interesting, that would escape the guy
> on the spot.
But of course geologists on the spot are going to win!
That's why oil companies send geologists down into tunnels
in the oil fields, rather than examining information
returned by logging equipment lowered into boreholes.
Not.
Paul
Alan Anderson
> dasun wrote:
> > Moore's law is great, but can it go on forever? How long before we
> > can build artificial intelligence as good as our own? What about the
>
> Given the average intelligence of the average Usenet poster, I bet that
> within 10 years we'll have Usenet bots indistingusheable of humans.
Sure, why not? We already have humans indistinguishable from bots (e.g.
Guth and Gerald). Doing that in the other direction should be a piece
of cake.
Usenet bots indistinguishable from Henry Spencer, on the other hand...
jonathan
<pari...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127172406.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I'd like to see 'em launching things that will help us down
here on earth. Things like this.
Space Solar Power home.
http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
We'd need the stick and heavy lift, and a large space station
if not several. It's conceivable that the US could someday
become the world's largest energy ....supplier....instead of
the largest importer. Not to mention the positive effects
on global warming that solar power brings. And wars
over oil? Isn't the dependence of fossil fuels the greatest
single threat to our future???
If not now.
Nasa's long term goals should revolve around the most acute
problems on earth. And since energy certainly qualifies ...and...
has it's ultimate solution in space, it's tragic that Nasa decides
that collecting more Moon rocks is the best they can do.
Nasa could do so much more if they only had some 'vision'.
They have a lotta nerve assigning that term to their new
space policy.
Jonathan
s
>
John Doe
> More focused, certainly, but with the increasing budget, and the
> predilection to do more in house and less contracting, how is it
> smaller?
More focused is the keyword here. NASA will be an organisation whose
sole capability will be to go to the moon, pick up a few rocks and come
back to the earth. No real advancement in space exploration, and a net
decrease in versatility of manned space programme.
In this announcement, has NASA announced automated docking development ?
Without a shuttle or automated docking, NASA will not be able to build
any structures in space anymore. And to build anything meaningful, they
will want docking ports as big as CBMs. So either automated bertthing
with existing CBMs or develop a docakble CBM size port.
John Doe
re: geologists
Lets talk about geologists: would they prefer to go to the moon or to go
to Mars ?
Seems to me that Mars has a much more interesting landscape and history.
Michael Rhino
news:1127161890.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
-NASA today unveiled an ambitious blueprint for returning American
-astronauts to the moon by 2018 using new rockets based on shuttle
-propulsion technology and a new reusable crew vehicle Administrator
-Mike Griffin described as "Apollo on steroids.."
-Full story:
- http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/19exploration/
It sounds like the lander docks with CEV, they fly to the moon together, and
then separate. Isn't this docking an extra step that slows things down?
Why not have them fly to the moon separately?
What is the cargo rocket? Is that used for ISS or the moon? If it is for
the moon, why would it be smaller than the manned rocket?
dasun
the middle of somewhere - like Timbuktu - and the geologists move in to
map the local geology. To this end they may do field work, seismic
shots, gravity readings, drilling etc. to provide the data they need to
map the subsurface geology. At various points, all the observations,
data and samples are shipped out to an office/lab and a comprehensive
report is written up as pertains the site and its potential for a given
resource. This is just like real planetary geology! Please note,
robots are not doing this job and are most unlikely to be doing so in
any reasonably near future!
This is my last post on the geological side as we are drifting way off
topic now, but believe me there is still much in-situ geology to be
performed on the moon and this job is best handled by on the spot
geologists. Geology is much more than collecting various spectra of em
radiation or sub-atomic particles, as astronomers do, although that can
play a part, it is also about looking at rocks in the field, the form
of the and scape and the layering in deposits. Nothing beats picking
up a rock, whipping out the geological hammer and giving it a whack to
get a nice clean surface to examine and the resultant ideas that spring
forth from that examination - "Oh, a basalt that means volcanic
outflow, are there any volcanic cones in the area?"
Ray
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
> On 19 Sep 2005 14:47:27 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Alex
> Terrell" <alext...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>>
>>>
>>I thought I was seeing the history channel - except there was no
>>Kennedy to say by the end of decade - rather, we'll put some men on the
>>moon, when we get round to it.
>>
>>With no plans for a moonbase, I'm struggling to see the point of all
>>this. And the architecture is about 50% more expensive than it ought to
>>be.
>
> OK, is anyone other than NASA fanboys here actually excited about this
> plan?
What else should NASA do? Personally, I rather get rid of NASA instead of
letting it orbit humans around the earth forever wasting our tax money. If
we are going to have manned spaceflight we need to be serious about it and
explore space, moon, mars and beyond, with people not just some dam robots.
Somebody mentioned something on these newsgroups once about NASA working
with energy. That's bullshit. We have a dept or energy for that. NASA
exists to do flight in space mostly.
Ray
Reed Snellenberger
news:4344621e...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
>
> More focused, certainly, but with the increasing budget, and the
> predilection to do more in house and less contracting, how is it
> smaller?
>
Increasing budget? Didn't Griffin say this program was designed to fit
into a flat+inflation budget? Where is the increase?
>
> For exactly the same (or more) cost as the Shuttle program.
>
We get something that will initially be (at least) safer than Shuttle and
ultimately be more versatile than the orbiter.
More importantly, it's a plan that finally puts an end-cap (of sorts) on
the shuttle era.
--
I was punching a text message into my | Reed Snellenberger
phone yesterday and thought, "they need | GPG KeyID: 5A978843
to make a phone that you can just talk | rsnellenberger
into." Major Thomb | -at-houston.rr.com
S. Wand
1) We're finally getting around to developing a Saturn V-class heavy lifter.
This is essential if we're ever to go beyond low earth orbit. And it looks
like they're going with the in-line design, which will have greater growth
potential than Shuttle-Z.
2) I think it is correct to focus on the moon for now. There are several
reasons why the moon could be a better colonization target than Mars - close
to earth in travel time and communications, easier gravity well to escape,
greater solar energy resources, no issues with biological contamination.
If water is present at the poles, then we can practice resource processing
as well.
3) There's no technological risk in the hardware development. Some may
view that as a negative, but we've wasted too much money on X-craft, space
stations, and (yes) the shuttle with very little to show for it. I think
until we get a space elevator, getting to LEO will be an expensive
proposition. Until then, keep it simple. Remember, the most dependable
launcher on earth is the first one - Soyuz.
4) Disappointed that it's too much like Apollo/Saturn? What an idiotic
troll-like complaint - Apollo/Saturn was the pinnacle achievement of the
space age. If we hadn't discarded it 30 years ago, then astronaut Husband
would be walking Husband Hill by now.
5) No mention of international cooperation. Don't get me wrong - I'm a
good old-fashioned globalist. But I'll die of old age before they negotiate
who builds what - and it won't be any cheaper anyway (e.g. ISS).
Two weaknesses in my opinion:
1) The Stick-CEV seems wrong-sized for LEO operations - too large. The
decision is understandable because we're keeping the SRBs for the heavy
lifter. But it would be nice to see private industry step up for operations
less than 250 miles high.
2) The overall price seems high. If the Stick/CEV development is about $10
billion (in itself a high number) and the Heavy is about $8 billion -
where's the rest of the money being spent? NASA needs to trim the
workforce, close some buildings, etc. Cancel ISS, or sell it to Bigelow.
:^)
Ray
"John Doe" <jd...@doe.org> wrote in message news:432F6655...@doe.org...
> Rand Simberg wrote:
>> More focused, certainly, but with the increasing budget, and the
>> predilection to do more in house and less contracting, how is it
>> smaller?
>
>
> More focused is the keyword here. NASA will be an organisation whose
> sole capability will be to go to the moon, pick up a few rocks and come
> back to the earth. No real advancement in space exploration, and a net
> decrease in versatility of manned space programme.
Ridiculious comment above. We are going back to the moon to learn to
live their! Not just to pick up a couple of rocks! Just like we have
learned to live in a space station in orbit for 6 months, we will learn to
live on the moon, another planet, and then we will transfer that knowledge
to living on Mars. We will learn to live off the land, and we will become
better humans. What is so wrong with this. We humans are explorers. This
is normal for us. This is well worth the cost.
Ray
Rand Simberg
Snellenberger <rsnelle...@houston-nospam-rr.com> made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>simberg.i...@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote in
>news:4344621e...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net:
>
>>
>> More focused, certainly, but with the increasing budget, and the
>> predilection to do more in house and less contracting, how is it
>> smaller?
>>
>
>Increasing budget? Didn't Griffin say this program was designed to fit
>into a flat+inflation budget? Where is the increase?
It's in whatever you arbitrarily call "inflation."
>> For exactly the same (or more) cost as the Shuttle program.
>>
>
>We get something that will initially be (at least) safer than Shuttle and
>ultimately be more versatile than the orbiter.
How can something that only carries six crew to orbit be more
versatile? Because it can deliver four people to lunar orbit, given a
sufficiently large and expensive upper stage? Big whoop.
>More importantly, it's a plan that finally puts an end-cap (of sorts) on
>the shuttle era.
What's the point, if there's no affordability improvement?
Rand Simberg
<vze3...@verizon.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>> OK, is anyone other than NASA fanboys here actually excited about this
>> plan?
> I am extremely excited about this plan!
You've already demonstrated yourself, prior to this post, to be a
naif. I was asking about people other than NASA fanboys.
> I have a question for you.
>What else should NASA do?
NASA should be working on making space access affordable. But that's
not something in its bureaucratic interest.
Alan Anderson
> It sounds like the lander docks with CEV, they fly to the moon together, and
> then separate. Isn't this docking an extra step that slows things down?
> Why not have them fly to the moon separately?
They'd each need a "departure stage" if it were done that way. They
need to dock in order for people/rocks to move between them anyway. And
there's always the Apollo 13 lesson -- having a lifeboat is a good idea.
Will McLean
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2005 15:08:09 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
> <edky...@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>
> >> OK, is anyone other than NASA fanboys here actually excited about this
> >> plan?
> >
> >the next how-ever-many years. It is a great improvement
> >to the space shuttle era NASA framework.
> >
> >This is a plan that could very well, over time, lead to a
> >smaller, more focused NASA.
>
> predilection to do more in house and less contracting, how is it
> smaller?
>
As I understand it, the budget increases very little in real terms.
Most of the increase is inflation.
> >It is a plan that produces
> >something useful in the near-term - the CEV and CLV tools
> >that will replace shuttle and could by themselves, in
> >concert with commercial launch services and international
> >space station partners, serve as the framework for a long-
> >term human space program.
>
> For exactly the same (or more) cost as the Shuttle program.
>
> http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/005729.html#005729
If you don't know if the figures you are quoting are full program costs
or fixed costs, how do you know that the CEV/CLV will cost exactly the
same or more?
And what was your source for the quote?
Will McLean
Jorge R. Frank
news:NVJXe.6073$Cg....@tornado.socal.rr.com:
> "AA Institute" <abdul...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:1127161890.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> -NASA today unveiled an ambitious blueprint for returning American
> -astronauts to the moon by 2018 using new rockets based on shuttle
> -propulsion technology and a new reusable crew vehicle Administrator
> -Mike Griffin described as "Apollo on steroids.."
>
> -Full story:
>
> - http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/19exploration/
>
> It sounds like the lander docks with CEV,
Other way around. CEV docks with the lander, which is launched into LEO
with the Earth departure stage.
> they fly to the moon
> together, and then separate. Isn't this docking an extra step that
> slows things down?
You've got to dock *somewhere* since the CEV can't land on the moon. Might
as well do it in LEO, where the abort options are much more benign if
something goes wrong.
> Why not have them fly to the moon separately?
Then both the CEV and the lander would need separate Earth departure
stages. Plus, as Alan pointed out, you get the lifeboat benefits.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
Ray
<mikharaki...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127177628.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
who are against manned space exploration in favor of unmanned space
exploration because of cost are anti-human because they really don't care
whether humanity lives or dies being limited to one planet in the future.
They care more about the advancement of robots into space instead of the
advancement of humans into space. Maybe because humans are illogical
sometimes and robots are not, so they like robots better, maybe. I care
more for the advancement of humans into space. I think robots should go
before us to explore space but the main goal should be about humanity
learning to live in space and spreading out, not robots.
Ray
Ray
I like what you said below, but I actually like a big CEV in orbit. The
astronauts deserve a roomy CEV. By the way, do you know the dimensions of
the CEV or where I could find that information? Will the CEV be as big as
the shuttle crew cabin or smaller?
Ray
"S. Wand" <sew...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:zIKdnX8Zwvy...@comcast.com...
Will McLean
Some questions struck me.
The CLV uses a SSME on the upper stage, the HLV a pair of J-2s. Why the
two different engines?
This plan could be expending a dozen (or more) SSMEs a year. At that
production rate, how much less do you pay per engine?
How much would it add to development cost to put some or all of the HLV
engines in recoverable pods?
Will McLean
Paul F. Dietz
> Ever hear of exploration geologists? Mining companies set up camp in
> the middle of somewhere - like Timbuktu - and the geologists move in to
> map the local geology.
No shit, dasun. The point, which whizzed completely over your
head, is that in some situations geologists are *not* sent
in, because it would be far too expensive to do so. Even
on Earth they use remote techniques when it's sufficiently
cheaper.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
> What else should NASA do?
It could cease to exist. Government agencies don't have a right to life.
Paul
S. Wand
compared to 3.9m for Apollo. I haven't seen any figures on internal volume
yet. I'd guess it'd be a bit smaller per person than the shuttle.
I think a large CEV is fine for the lunar missions - but for ISS rendevous a
Soyuz-class vehicle is sufficient. I'm sure it's too much money for NASA to
have another vehicle - but hopefully they'd consider private industry at
some point for the LEO market. Wishful thinking...
But overall, I really think it's a good plan. If they keep the budget under
control and try to live off the land, then maybe we can have a permanent
lunar presence.
"Ray" <vze3...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:22LXe.7296$i86.3182@trndny01...
Joe Strout
"S. Wand" <sew...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Yes, there is a lot to like about this plan.
>
> 1) We're finally getting around to developing a Saturn V-class heavy lifter.
Again...
> This is essential if we're ever to go beyond low earth orbit.
No, it's not. There are many mission architectures that would work just
fine with smaller launchers -- launchers of the sort, in fact, that are
already commercially available, and which will have even more
cost-reducing competition in the near future.
NASA should be out of the rocket development (and launch) business
altogether. Developing a new rocket is a big mistake, for a lot of
reasons.
> 2) I think it is correct to focus on the moon for now.
Agreed.
> 3) There's no technological risk in the hardware development.
Then what do you call it? Bureaucratic risk? However you label it,
there is substantial risk of schedule slippage, cost overruns, and
underperformance, if past history is any guide.
> I think until we get a space elevator, getting to LEO will be an expensive
> proposition.
Then you've already lost (or else you have a uselessly loose definition
of "expensive"). Rocket launch could be substantially cheaper than it
is now, but it needs a healthy capitalist market, not a massive
socialist space program -- one thing history has shown is clearly is
that socialism is enormously inefficient. (Ironic that Russia now has a
far more capitalist -- and cost-effective -- space program than we do.)
> 4) Disappointed that it's too much like Apollo/Saturn? What an idiotic
> troll-like complaint - Apollo/Saturn was the pinnacle achievement of the
> space age.
And how many times will it continue to be a pinnacle achievement if we
keep redoing it?
Actually, I couldn't care less how much it's like Apollo/Saturn in terms
of the hardware or mission profile. The objection is that it's too much
like it in terms of its cost and sustainability (which are very high and
very low, respectively). Use the same approach, and you'll get the same
outcome -- maybe a half-dozen "missions" ending with no real development
or infrastructure of any kind. That's not progress. Pinnacle
achievements are great, but they don't get me a trip to the lunar Hilton.
> If we hadn't discarded it 30 years ago, then astronaut Husband
> would be walking Husband Hill by now.
But we did, because it was too costly and unsustainable. Why do you
imagine that it will be different this time?
> 5) No mention of international cooperation. Don't get me wrong - I'm a
> good old-fashioned globalist. But I'll die of old age before they negotiate
> who builds what - and it won't be any cheaper anyway (e.g. ISS).
Agreed, the only thing worse than NASA controlling things is NASA
cooperating with a half-dozen other agencies to control things.
> Two weaknesses in my opinion:
> 1) The Stick-CEV seems wrong-sized for LEO operations - too large.
Agreed. And much too governmental.
> The decision is understandable because we're keeping the SRBs for the heavy
> lifter.
That's no reason to make such an important decision! I'm groping for a
suitable analogy... it's like saying, we'll build this new car with a
propellor on the back, because we're going to need propellors for the
boat we also plan to build. (Much better would be to simply buy a car,
never mind that it lacks a propellor.)
> But it would be nice to see private industry step up for operations
> less than 250 miles high.
Now you've hit it. But private industry needs to be given the
opportunity -- nay, the market *demand* -- to step up. This plan does
the opposite.
> 2) The overall price seems high. If the Stick/CEV development is about $10
> billion (in itself a high number) and the Heavy is about $8 billion -
> where's the rest of the money being spent? NASA needs to trim the
> workforce, close some buildings, etc.
Right, which means no shuttle-derived heavy launch vehicle; develop
standard payload interfaces and buy launches for them on the open
market. Retrain all those out-of-work shuttle workers in something more
useful, like interior design.
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| j...@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
Michael Rhino
news:aranders-66E62A...@netnews.asp.att.net...
> "Michael Rhino" <news...@alexanderpics.com> wrote:
>
>> It sounds like the lander docks with CEV, they fly to the moon together,
>> and
>> then separate. Isn't this docking an extra step that slows things down?
>> Why not have them fly to the moon separately?
>
> They'd each need a "departure stage" if it were done that way.
Is there a problem with two departure stages? If they join together, they
are twice as heavy, so you need twice the fuel to get them there.
> They
> need to dock in order for people/rocks to move between them anyway.
The mission profile called for docking twice, once in low Earth orbit and
once in lunar orbit. I was concerned that docking in low Earth orbit would
slow the mission down.
After they leave the moon, they dock with something, but does that something
need any life support systems? They could stick with the life support
system they had on the moon and use that for the entire journey both
directions.
> And
> there's always the Apollo 13 lesson -- having a lifeboat is a good idea.
A lifeboat with no heat shield would have a serious problem. It depends on
which half dies.
Joe Strout
"dasun" <david....@amsa.gov.au> wrote:
> Hope all you like but the brutal reality is that space does not rate
> much with most politicians and resonates little with the public -
> unless they see amazing things. In the real world the budget
> environment is very tight thus limiting what can be done, you want Moon
> Bases, you want Mars now pony up the cash.
No, no, you're making wrong assumptions. I wasn't hoping for NASA to
establish moon bases or visit Mars (the later is especially pointless at
this stage); I was hoping for NASA to change its culture to become more
effective. In particular, it should be willing to lay off its vast
Shuttle support army and get out of the launch business. Instead, it's
doing exactly the opposite: not only developing new uses for the Shuttle
army, but also sizing its CEV just out of the range of any commercial
launcher so that it won't have to explain why it's not following its
mandate to support the commercial launch business.
> If we wait for that sort of
> money to materialise from reluctant politicians then manned exploration
> beyond LEO is not going to happen. Take what Griffin is offering, I
> seriously doubt much better could be proposed given NASA's current and
> future budgets.
Your doubts are unfounded. MUCH better could have been proposed.
> How in the hell is the experience base of operating in deep space on
> another word the wrong kind of experience?
Because it's based on unsustainable practices. You may notice that we
got experience visiting the Moon before, six times. After that, we
stopped, because it was unsustainable. This plan appears the same to
me; overpriced missions on overpriced hardware, with no infrastructure
development, and no way it will be sustained beyond a handful of visits.
> After 30 years of LEO practice and technology development is most
> certainly needed before we venture much further.
No, what's needed is a sustainable approach, making use of commercial
launch providers, and the development of cislunar infrastructure.
> Shuttle hardware is expensive, so is building whole new systems from
> scratch but - I bet - even more so.
Right. Better to use the existing systems (and ones on the near horizon
such as Falcon, plus others that would no doubt arise in the robust
market a good space development program would create).
> Use what you know, build only what you have to that would be my credo.
Would that NASA had the same credo! But they don't. Theirs is: employ
the people you have, build unnecessary hardware to keep them busy and to
keep those commercial launch providers from showing us up.
> Shuttle hardware provides
> well-known systems, as the basis of heavy lift and crew transport and
> that has to put the aerospace engineers ahead of the game. Think of
> the entire support infrastructure - VAB, crawlers, pads - and it
> already exists and just needs modifying.
No, it needs scrapping. Think of all that stuff, and you can see why
NASA's launch costs are so ridiculously high. And that, in turn, will
be the primary reason the program is unsustainable.
> As for commercial exploration beyond LEO, give me a reasonable business
> plan that justifies that sort of expenditure
Sure:
1. NASA develops standard payload interfaces, at a reasonable size that
can be reached by at least 2 commercial launchers (and preferably more).
2. NASA announces a plan to purchase such launches for a robust program
of exploration, from the lowest reliable provider available at each
launch. (Yes, I know determining "reliable" could be a rat's nest if
done poorly, but suppose it's done sensibly.)
3. Launch providers compete to lower their own launch costs, in order to
get those launches and make a tidy profit. New companies arise to get a
piece of the action; launch costs go down, reliability and capability go
up.
It's not tricky. It just requires NASA getting out of the launch
business and setting up a decent system for selecting launch providers,
that encourages competition.
Then of course there's the purely commercial market, supported mainly by
tourism, but that has to go through suborbital and orbital before we
start thinking about beyond-LEO.
> Finally, give some credit to Bush for enabling this point to be reached
> and now the crossing of the Cassandra can now begin....
I give credit to Bush for ending the moon taboo at NASA. But I remain
disappointed with what NASA is doing with it.
Reed Snellenberger
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 02:07:37 GMT, in a place far, far away, Reed
> Snellenberger <rsnelle...@houston-nospam-rr.com> made the phosphor
> on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>
>>Increasing budget? Didn't Griffin say this program was designed to
>>fit into a flat+inflation budget? Where is the increase?
>
> It's in whatever you arbitrarily call "inflation."
>
Oh.
Hoping that you agree that it isn't accurate to compare unadjusted dollar
amounts that occur over a span of years (in the sense that "gas used to
cost $0.23/gal; now it costs five or more times that!" isn't a valid
comparison between a 1972 and a 2005 price), what benchmark, if any,
would *you* accept as "not increasing" in the flat+<annual change in
value of $>" sense?
That's the one I'm talking about...
>>> For exactly the same (or more) cost as the Shuttle program.
>>>
>>
>>We get something that will initially be (at least) safer than Shuttle
>>and ultimately be more versatile than the orbiter.
>
> How can something that only carries six crew to orbit be more
> versatile? Because it can deliver four people to lunar orbit, given a
> sufficiently large and expensive upper stage? Big whoop.
>
Because it can carry more people to orbit than any other craft but the
moribund Shuttle. Because it can deliver four people to lunar orbit, for
another. Because it probably won't have to worry about launch delays
caused by mild breezes over a runway on the other side of the Atlantic.
Because it will likeways not have to worry nearly as much about winds
aloft causing sufficient aerodynamic stress to break off a wing.
>>More importantly, it's a plan that finally puts an end-cap (of sorts)
>>on the shuttle era.
>
> What's the point, if there's no affordability improvement?
>
What's the point of an affordability improvement? There are more
important considerations in a non-commercial venture.
dasun
contribute, that people add significant value to the exploration
processes, which is why on Earth exploration geology is performed in
conjunction with remote sensing. Mining companies would never solely
rely on remote sensing to decide to mine an area. General surveys are
done remotely, specific surveys of much smaller areas - identified
remotely - are done in person, and strategic decisions based on all
this information are then made. If we go to the planets or the Moon
then this is the model we should follow. People add cost, but they
also add much value.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> mikharaki...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > dasun wrote:
> > > Moore's law is great, but can it go on forever? How long before we
> > > can build artificial intelligence as good as our own? What about the
> >
> > Given the average intelligence of the average Usenet poster, I bet that
> > within 10 years we'll have Usenet bots indistingusheable of humans.
>
> Guth and Gerald). Doing that in the other direction should be a piece
> of cake.
Alan, don't insult the bots like that please.
>
> Usenet bots indistinguishable from Henry Spencer, on the other hand...
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Michael Rhino" <news...@alexanderpics.com> wrote in message
news:MJLXe.6090$Cg....@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> "Alan Anderson" <aran...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:aranders-66E62A...@netnews.asp.att.net...
> > "Michael Rhino" <news...@alexanderpics.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It sounds like the lander docks with CEV, they fly to the moon
together,
> >> and
> >> then separate. Isn't this docking an extra step that slows things
down?
> >> Why not have them fly to the moon separately?
> >
> > They'd each need a "departure stage" if it were done that way.
>
> Is there a problem with two departure stages? If they join together, they
> are twice as heavy, so you need twice the fuel to get them there.
>
> > They
> > need to dock in order for people/rocks to move between them anyway.
>
> The mission profile called for docking twice, once in low Earth orbit and
> once in lunar orbit. I was concerned that docking in low Earth orbit
would
> slow the mission down.
>
It's not like its going to add days to the mission.
> After they leave the moon, they dock with something, but does that
something
> need any life support systems? They could stick with the life support
> system they had on the moon and use that for the entire journey both
> directions.
>
> > And
> > there's always the Apollo 13 lesson -- having a lifeboat is a good idea.
>
> A lifeboat with no heat shield would have a serious problem. It depends
on
> which half dies.
Not really. You just need the 1/2 with the heatshield to have enough backup
power to last for re-entry. Again, like Apollo 13.
>
>
Jorge R. Frank
news:Xns96D6D6D901C56rs...@24.93.43.119:
> We get something that will initially be (at least) safer than Shuttle
CEV claims to cut the risk of crew loss *during the ascent phase* by a
factor of ten compared to the shuttle, but ascent risk is only about half
the overall risk. And the remaining mission risks for CEV don't
automatically drop just because the ascent risk dropped. So *at best*
you're talking about a 50% risk reduction - and that's only after the
spacecraft has flown enough times to demonstrate the level of design
maturity the shuttle has *now*.
> and ultimately be more versatile than the orbiter.
In the sense that it can go to the moon, yes. For LEO missions, it's way
less versatile than the orbiter. In particular, "ISS assembly complete" is
about to be redefined as "whatever state the station happens to be in
whenever the shuttle stops flying, since there ain't no way CEV is going to
do any meaningful assembly."
That's perfectly alright as long as you don't pretend to have goals in LEO
like ISS and keep the program focused on exploration beyond LEO. But those
who pretend otherwise are going to be disappointed.
Ed Kyle
> On 19 Sep 2005 15:08:09 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
> <edky...@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>
> >> plan?
> >
> >the next how-ever-many years. It is a great improvement
> >to the space shuttle era NASA framework.
> >
> >This is a plan that could very well, over time, lead to a
> >smaller, more focused NASA.
>
> More focused, certainly, but with the increasing budget, and the
> predilection to do more in house and less contracting, how is it
> smaller?
>
> >something useful in the near-term - the CEV and CLV tools
> >that will replace shuttle and could by themselves, in
> >concert with commercial launch services and international
> >space station partners, serve as the framework for a long-
> >term human space program.
>
>
I haven't seen the CEV costs you cite in this article.
I've seen the recent charts put up by nasawatch, but
I don't see how it is possible to sort out development
costs from operating costs in these projections. It
still seems likely to me that a Stick-based program
would cost less annually than a Shuttle-based program
over the long term.
The bottom line is that NASA's budget is not projected
to increase much on an annual basis (adjusted for
inflation) even while it develops two new launch
vehicles and two new human crewed spaceflight vehicles
that will be bound for the moon. This sounds better to
me than the status quo that has NASA spending close to
$4 billion per year trying to keep shuttle flying in
low earth orbit only.
- Ed Kyle
Russell Wallace
> Dare I point out to sarcastic dunderheads, who would rather insult than
> contribute, that people add significant value to the exploration
> processes, which is why on Earth exploration geology is performed in
> conjunction with remote sensing. Mining companies would never solely
> rely on remote sensing to decide to mine an area.
They would if sending humans cost $50 billion.
> General surveys are
> done remotely, specific surveys of much smaller areas - identified
> remotely - are done in person, and strategic decisions based on all
> this information are then made. If we go to the planets or the Moon
> then this is the model we should follow. People add cost, but they
> also add much value.
Yes, but not $50 billion worth of value. When we have the technology to
send people to other worlds for a halfway sane sum of money, then and
only then will it make sense to do so.
--
"Always look on the bright side of life."
To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name.
John Doe
> Ridiculious comment above. We are going back to the moon to learn to
> live their! Not just to pick up a couple of rocks!
You are naive if you think that. Nothing in the announced plan will
develop technology to land "space station" elements on the moon. Nothing
in the announced plan will have technology to sohoot mining equipment to
get some water.
All that is announced is a glorified 4 person LEM capable of staying 1
week instead of 2 days with 2 crewmembers.
Hopefully that glorified LEM will have room for a dune buggy line the
later Apollo missions.
And once they've made the flight to the moon to pickup rock samples, how
much do you bet that the program will be cancelled ?
The shuttle has been to the station far more times than Apollo went to
the moon. And the CEV , if it is ever completed, will have gone more
times to the station than to the moon.
John Doe
> The bottom line is that NASA's budget is not projected
> to increase much on an annual basis (adjusted for
> inflation)
Yeah sure....
Didn't they say that for Shuttle, and promise the shuttle would be fully
reusable with little/no maintenance required between flights and fly at
very low costs many times per month ?
Griffin mentioned reusability. In the end, it will be similar to Soyuz
reusability: they'll try to salvage some electronics from the cabin. But
the rest will be crushed and sent to smelters to be turned into beer cans.
One must not believe promises made at this point. And it is dangerous
for NASA to make promises because it may force it to end up making
compromises that will make the vehicle costlier and not as good, just
like it had to compromise with Shuttle.
Derek Lyons
>We humans are explorers. This is normal for us.
As a race? Not really. The bulk of the race is very solidly
stay-at-home, take-no-risk, eat-only-what-grandpa-ate.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Derek Lyons
They use remote techniques because it's more reasonable to do so -
digging a shaft wide enough for a geologist yet deep enough to reach
oil is virtually an impossibility, and remote methods return enough
data to be useful.
OTOH - anywhere it is reasonable to put a set of eyes and hands in
situ, they do so. (Even where it's only semi reasonable - something
like half of Alvin's dives have been geologic in nature.)
Derek Lyons
>> They'd each need a "departure stage" if it were done that way.
>
>Is there a problem with two departure stages? If they join together, they
>are twice as heavy, so you need twice the fuel to get them there.
For a given weight at TLI, you'll need essentially the same amount of
fuel for the same weight - it doesn't matter if the weight is in two
packages (each having half the payload and half the TLI fuel) or a
single stack. Thus splitting the TLI stage in two doesn't save fuel
(which is cheap anyhow), and increases costs and failure modes.
Paul F. Dietz
> that people add significant value to the exploration
> processes, which is why on Earth exploration geology is performed in
> conjunction with remote sensing.
They are used on Earth because on Earth people are *really cheap*.
> Mining companies would never solely
> rely on remote sensing to decide to mine an area.
If there's an area of land on Earth were geologists
can't economically be sent to the surface, then mining companies
will not employ just remote sensing because the area won't
be economical to mine at all.
This application of this observation to the moon should be obvious.
Or are you going to tell me about all the mining companies just
raring to go to open lunar mines?
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
> They use remote techniques because it's more reasonable to do so -
> digging a shaft wide enough for a geologist yet deep enough to reach
> oil is virtually an impossibility, and remote methods return enough
> data to be useful.
Reasonable == economical.
Paul
Douglas Holmes
>I think I read that CEV would be 5.5m across the base of the heat shield,
> compared to 3.9m for Apollo. I haven't seen any figures on internal
> volume
> yet. I'd guess it'd be a bit smaller per person than the shuttle.
>
> I think a large CEV is fine for the lunar missions - but for ISS rendevous
> a
> Soyuz-class vehicle is sufficient. I'm sure it's too much money for NASA
> to
> have another vehicle - but hopefully they'd consider private industry at
> some point for the LEO market. Wishful thinking...
>
With appropriate amounts of fuel about 18 mt to ISS, 15mt without escape
system (unmanned).
A little heavy but not as bad as I feared.
Ray
"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4332c07d...@supernews.seanet.com...
Not true. If that were true, our primitive predecessors would not
have gotten out of Africa. We humans might have become that way over that
last 200 years, but we are explorers by heart, and we need to be inspired
and shown the way.
I think its pathetic how people are against human space exploration. Too
much of this attitude and we will become extinct someday. Another problem
is that people are cheap with tax money. They don't want it wasted, so give
it back in a tax break and watch how they spend it important things like
alcohol, tobacco, drugs and gambling.
Ray
Rand Simberg
<mclea...@aol.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>> >It is a plan that produces
>> >something useful in the near-term - the CEV and CLV tools
>> >that will replace shuttle and could by themselves, in
>> >concert with commercial launch services and international
>> >space station partners, serve as the framework for a long-
>> >term human space program.
>>
>> For exactly the same (or more) cost as the Shuttle program.
>>
>> http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/005729.html#005729
>
>If you don't know if the figures you are quoting are full program costs
>or fixed costs, how do you know that the CEV/CLV will cost exactly the
>same or more?
If they're fixed costs, then it will cost more. My numbers applied to
full program costs.
>And what was your source for the quote?
Not a great one. A posting here, I think.
Rand Simberg
Strout <j...@strout.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>> If we wait for that sort of
>> money to materialise from reluctant politicians then manned exploration
>> beyond LEO is not going to happen. Take what Griffin is offering, I
>> seriously doubt much better could be proposed given NASA's current and
>> future budgets.
>
>Your doubts are unfounded. MUCH better could have been proposed.
In the sense that the money could be better spent, yes, but it's
possible that this is the only kind of plan that would be politically
acceptable (those jobs have to be maintained).
Paul F. Dietz
> Not true. If that were true, our primitive predecessors would not
> have gotten out of Africa. We humans might have become that way over that
> last 200 years, but we are explorers by heart, and we need to be inspired
> and shown the way.
This is just bullshit. The vast majority of humans are not explorers.
They have been born, lived, and died in small geographical areas -- that's
why human racial diversity still exists, after all.
Long distance exploration has been a desperate, dangerous, last-resort
behavior, undertaken by fringe elements or individuals who would otherwise
have been failures. And these elements typically haven't needed megafunding
from megagovernment to do this exploration, so the application to the
current situation in space is tenuous at best.
> I think its pathetic how people are against human space exploration.
I think the transparently foolish arguments used to justify space
exploration are what is truly pathetic.
Paul
Ray
"John Doe" <jd...@doe.org> wrote in message news:432FBCD7...@doe.org...
> Ray wrote:
>> Ridiculious comment above. We are going back to the moon to learn to
>> live their! Not just to pick up a couple of rocks!
>
>
> You are naive if you think that. Nothing in the announced plan will
> develop technology to land "space station" elements on the moon. Nothing
> in the announced plan will have technology to sohoot mining equipment to
> get some water.
>
> All that is announced is a glorified 4 person LEM capable of staying 1
> week instead of 2 days with 2 crewmembers.
>
> Hopefully that glorified LEM will have room for a dune buggy line the
> later Apollo missions.
>
> And once they've made the flight to the moon to pickup rock samples, how
> much do you bet that the program will be cancelled ?
outside of earth orbit, you make a few flights to the moon and then cancel
the program? No. And do what with the CEV? Operate it in orbit only? No. It
was not designed for that. I dont think any future American President,
Senate or Congress will be that stupid enough to cancel the program with one
exception. The moon program might be cancled eventually for Mars, but to
cancel it and do nothing outside of earth orbit is just stupid. I think the
congress and the senate are dedicated to this program.
Ray
Rand Simberg
<vze3...@verizon.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>> And once they've made the flight to the moon to pickup rock samples, how
>> much do you bet that the program will be cancelled ?
> That makes no sense. You have a spacecraft designed to operate
>outside of earth orbit, you make a few flights to the moon and then cancel
>the program?
You mean exactly the way we did in the 1960s?
>I dont think any future American President,
>Senate or Congress will be that stupid enough to cancel the program with one
>exception.
It happened once, and it's likely to happen again.
Ray
"Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in message
news:uO6dnTcIG7h...@dls.net...
> Ray wrote:
>
>> What else should NASA do?
>
> It could cease to exist. Government agencies don't have a right to life.
>
> Paul
If moon, mars and beyond cannot be justified and its too expensive
then why did the Congress (94%), Senate and President overwhelmingly approve
it? Why couldn't they just stay with the shuttle or developed an orbital
space plane to get to orbit only when we need to or just cancel manned space
exploration? I think we got moon, mars and beyond because the US government
overwhelmingly supports it and a lot of major aerospace corporations support
it.
Ray
Herb Schaltegger
(in article <p9TXe.8506$i86.1501@trndny01>):
> That makes no sense. You have a spacecraft designed to operate
> outside of earth orbit, you make a few flights to the moon and then cancel
> the program? No. And do what with the CEV? Operate it in orbit only? No. It
> was not designed for that.
It's not designed at all. So far, all you or anyone else has seen are
a bunch of pretty pictures. NASA and its contractors are very fond of
pretty pictures. Do you really believe these are the only pretty
pictures NASA has produced to drum up support for a project? Do you
not realize how few actually come to fruition?
>I dont think any future American President,
> Senate or Congress will be that stupid enough to cancel the program with one
> exception.
Flash back to the late 1960's/early 1970's and consider what was done
with Apollo, then consider what you just wrote.
> The moon program might be cancled eventually for Mars, but to
> cancel it and do nothing outside of earth orbit is just stupid. I think the
> congress and the senate are dedicated to this program.
Based on what? Why do you believe that Congress cares one whit about
this program aside from jobs at the NASA centers and contractors?
--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
<www.angryherb.net>
Paul F. Dietz
> If moon, mars and beyond cannot be justified and its too expensive
> then why did the Congress (94%), Senate and President overwhelmingly approve
> it?
Because it buys votes?
I do hope you are not proposing that if the government approves something,
that implies the thing is a good idea.
> Why couldn't they just stay with the shuttle or developed an orbital
> space plane to get to orbit only when we need to or just cancel manned space
> exploration? I think we got moon, mars and beyond because the US government
> overwhelmingly supports it and a lot of major aerospace corporations support
> it.
Well, *of course* the pigs feeding at this trough support it.
They support things that send money their way.
They couldn't stay with the shuttle because it's become an embarrassment,
and because the day when they can't fly any more of them is closer
than they thought (at which point the pork stops flowing).
Paul
Will McLean
You can make a stab at by looking at the costs after specific systems
are supposed to become operational. Note, however, that though the
charts were posted recently, they date back to June, and at least some
of the assumptions are obsolete.
> It
> still seems likely to me that a Stick-based program
> would cost less annually than a Shuttle-based program
> over the long term.
>
> The bottom line is that NASA's budget is not projected
> to increase much on an annual basis (adjusted for
> inflation) even while it develops two new launch
> vehicles and two new human crewed spaceflight vehicles
> that will be bound for the moon. This sounds better to
> me than the status quo that has NASA spending close to
> $4 billion per year trying to keep shuttle flying in
> low earth orbit only.
>
> - Ed Kyle
Over $4 billion a year now.
Will McLean
Jeff Findley
<pari...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127167120....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> The bottom line is : let s give back to NASA in 2018 the capabilities
> it had in 1972.
And cost more money and time to do it. :-(
Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
Jeff Findley
<pari...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127172406.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Maybe we could do a commercial Skylab ?
>
> Since the launcher exists, why not a single module, 100-ton class
> commercial station.. ?
>
> No costly assembly and with a 100 mass maybe you can keep the
> consumable servicing to a minimum. Maybe build with ample design
> margins and simple construction techniques.
>
> Well : question, with the 125-t class launcher, assuming the Govt
> builds two a year for its Moon missions, what else could be done ?
Sorry, but with NASA controlling both Satay (The Stick) and the SDHLV, I'd
say that the chances are zero that it will ever be used commercially.
Jeff Findley
"dasun" <david....@amsa.gov.au> wrote in message
news:1127175011.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Science is not the reason for going up - that is philosophical -
> science is what you do when you are there, along with all the house
> keeping chores. Colonisation, if it happens at all, is generally not
> what you do when you first arrive on a new world, as the history of
> earth exploration will attest, first you look around and then you
> decide where to stay and why and that may take decades or centuries.
> In short science is a very useful activity to perform if you have
> decided to go to new worlds in the first place. Besides, find a
> politician that understands science!
None of that will happen with the high cost that NASA is building into the
program. I agree with Rand's blog that NASA is likely to have four or less
flights per year to the Moon. This is nowhere near a colony, and at a cost
of $7 billion per year, you're not going to find anyone who would want to
pay to scale that up to colony size.
What's holding us back is high launch costs. NASA's exploration plan does
nothing to address this issue.
Jeff Findley
"John Doe" <jd...@doe.org> wrote in message news:432F6655...@doe.org...
> In this announcement, has NASA announced automated docking development ?
> Without a shuttle or automated docking, NASA will not be able to build
> any structures in space anymore. And to build anything meaningful, they
> will want docking ports as big as CBMs. So either automated bertthing
> with existing CBMs or develop a docakble CBM size port.
Actually, I think they did, but they did so in an indirect way. The
articles I read said the CEV would be able to fly unmanned cargo missions to
ISS. That implies automated rendezvous and docking (or berthing).
Jeff Findley
"Ray" <vze3...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:GlKXe.6343$N35.5605@trndny09...
> Ridiculious comment above. We are going back to the moon to learn to
> learned to live in a space station in orbit for 6 months, we will learn to
> live on the moon, another planet, and then we will transfer that knowledge
> to living on Mars. We will learn to live off the land, and we will become
> better humans. What is so wrong with this. We humans are explorers.
This
> is normal for us. This is well worth the cost.
Then you're not understanding NASA's announcement very well. From the looks
of the plan, about all they could sustain is about four lunar missions per
year. In other words, this is only a bit bigger than Apollo. It's nowhere
near the capability to build a sustainable lunar base of the size you seem
to be thinking of.
Jeff Findley
> That makes no sense. You have a spacecraft designed to operate
> outside of earth orbit, you make a few flights to the moon and then cancel
> the program? No. And do what with the CEV? Operate it in orbit only? No.
It
> was not designed for that. I dont think any future American President,
> Senate or Congress will be that stupid enough to cancel the program with
one
> exception. The moon program might be cancled eventually for Mars, but to
> cancel it and do nothing outside of earth orbit is just stupid. I think
the
> congress and the senate are dedicated to this program.
Yet that's exactly what's happening to ISS. NASA needs to severely cut back
on the number of planned shuttle flights to ISS in order to end the shuttle
program by 2010. Furthermore, NASA has yet to develop the crew return
vehicle that it agreed to develop and deploy in order to increase the ISS
crew size beyond three. Maybe we'll see CEV flying to ISS by 2012, but
that's many years beyond the initial plan and many years beyond the date
that Russia agreed to fly US astronauts to and from ISS on Soyuz.
What makes you think that this next program will be any different than how
NASA has run ISS? What will they cut from the lunar exploration program
when they run into cost overruns like they did on ISS and congress and the
administration tell them to redesign the program? Have you learned nothing
from the shuttle/ISS programs?
genedi...@hotmail.com
Alex Terrell wrote:
> In short, it's not as disastrous as the previuos (Shuttle) strategy.
>
>
> Even the CEV is gross overkill in the near term, if it's just going to
> fly to ISS. So as well as recreating Apollo, NASA's going to recreate
> Soyuz.
CEV recreates Apollo and Soyuz but bear in mind that Soyuz was the
Russian equivalent to Apollo. Also understand that back in the early
60's Apollo was to be more than just a moon vehicle. It was meant to be
the standard taxi to take astronauts to work. Think of AAP,
unfortunately it morphed into the single program Skylab, but NASA had
alot of plans for the CSM back in the mid 60's. In a sense the Apollo
CSM was also meant to be a shuttle too, albeit a non reusable one with
no cargo capability. Like Big Gemini, however, I'm sure there were
designs for later generation Apollo based spacecraft that had cargo
capability.
As far as CEV, Stick, and Big Rocket goes, we have come full circle
back to an Apollo CSM, Saturn 1b and Saturn V. These were vehicles we
should have never discarded and abandoned in the first place.
Hey man the new Mustang looks like it should, Pontiac makes a GTO again
and Chrysler makes Hemis once more, why shouldn't NASA join the retro
trend!
Gene DiGennaro
Baltimore, Md.
Rand Simberg
Findley" <jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
Not to mention the fact that only NASA would be able (or willing) to
afford it.
Jeff Findley
>
> I am extremely excited about this plan! I have a question for
you.
> What else should NASA do? Personally, I rather get rid of NASA instead of
> letting it orbit humans around the earth forever wasting our tax money.
If
> we are going to have manned spaceflight we need to be serious about it and
> explore space, moon, mars and beyond, with people not just some dam
robots.
> Somebody mentioned something on these newsgroups once about NASA working
> with energy. That's bullshit. We have a dept or energy for that. NASA
> exists to do flight in space mostly.
NASA could focus on the real problem, which is high launch costs. For the
$7 billion a year this program is going to cost, they could fund dozens of
X-vehicle programs, each aimed at one aspect of lowering launch costs. The
results of these programs would be public knowledge, useable by both the
established launch companies, and the startups.
Certainly this would delay our return to the moon, but it would make the
return to the moon far more affordable and sustainable. Apollo wasn't
sustainable due to high costs. Shuttle wasn't sustainable in part due to
high costs. What makes anyone think that the Stick and the SDHLV will be
sustainable?
Rand Simberg
genedi...@hotmail.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>As far as CEV, Stick, and Big Rocket goes, we have come full circle
>back to an Apollo CSM, Saturn 1b and Saturn V. These were vehicles we
>should have never discarded and abandoned in the first place.
They were abandoned for good reason.
>Hey man the new Mustang looks like it should, Pontiac makes a GTO again
>and Chrysler makes Hemis once more, why shouldn't NASA join the retro
>trend!
Because it's ridiculously expensive.
Jeff Findley
> Yes, there is a lot to like about this plan.
>
> 1) We're finally getting around to developing a Saturn V-class heavy
lifter.
> This is essential if we're ever to go beyond low earth orbit. And it
looks
> like they're going with the in-line design, which will have greater growth
> potential than Shuttle-Z.
Heavy lift isn't required for missions beyond LEO. It's a desire on NASA's
part. There isn't any reason you can't launch all the pieces separately and
assemble them in LEO. The biggest mass to launch for a Moon mission is the
fuel and oxidizer to get you there and back. It's far easier to launch fuel
and oxidizer on multiple launches to LEO than NASA would like you to think.
> 2) I think it is correct to focus on the moon for now. There are several
> reasons why the moon could be a better colonization target than Mars -
close
> to earth in travel time and communications, easier gravity well to
escape,
> greater solar energy resources, no issues with biological contamination.
> If water is present at the poles, then we can practice resource processing
> as well.
But the plan isn't to colonize the moon. The plan is to have maybe four
NASA missions per year to the moon with maybe a dozen or two *NASA*
astronauts making that trip. This won't open up the moon to colonization in
any real sense of the word.
> 3) There's no technological risk in the hardware development. Some may
> view that as a negative, but we've wasted too much money on X-craft, space
> stations, and (yes) the shuttle with very little to show for it. I think
> until we get a space elevator, getting to LEO will be an expensive
> proposition. Until then, keep it simple. Remember, the most dependable
> launcher on earth is the first one - Soyuz.
The risk may be low (in your opinion), but the cost is definately high. $10
to $15 billion, just to develop the stick and the SDHLV. That's $10 to $15
billion that could be better spent.
> 4) Disappointed that it's too much like Apollo/Saturn? What an idiotic
> troll-like complaint - Apollo/Saturn was the pinnacle achievement of the
> space age. If we hadn't discarded it 30 years ago, then astronaut Husband
> would be walking Husband Hill by now.
Yet it wasn't economically sustainable. NASA had plenty of plans to keep
using Saturns to launch all sorts of space stations and lunar missions. But
it was too expensive to do so and the entire program was scrapped, even
before the Apollo lunar landing missions ended. Skylab and ASTP flew only
because of the surplus Apollo hardware that remained after the last lunar
landing missions were cancelled.
What makes you think that the stick and the SDHLV will be more sustainable
over the long term? What happens when the US public gets bored of landing a
few astronauts on the moon every year?
> Two weaknesses in my opinion:
> 1) The Stick-CEV seems wrong-sized for LEO operations - too large. The
> decision is understandable because we're keeping the SRBs for the heavy
> lifter. But it would be nice to see private industry step up for
operations
> less than 250 miles high.
That's clearly a problem with the SDHLLV as well. The size and cost is too
big.
> 2) The overall price seems high. If the Stick/CEV development is about
$10
> billion (in itself a high number) and the Heavy is about $8 billion -
> where's the rest of the money being spent? NASA needs to trim the
> workforce, close some buildings, etc. Cancel ISS, or sell it to Bigelow.
Work on ISS will slow to a near stand still. It will certainly be a
destination of the CEV, if only to give it a meaningful place to go in LEO
(for testing), but beyond that, I don't see NASA spending much money to keep
ISS going after it declares ISS "assembly complete" (which really means the
end of shuttle flights).
NASA is continuing to jump from mega program to mega program, providing us
with nothing in the way of sustainable, economic, access to space.
Jeff Findley
>
> I like what you said below, but I actually like a big CEV in orbit.
The
> astronauts deserve a roomy CEV. By the way, do you know the dimensions of
> the CEV or where I could find that information? Will the CEV be as big as
> the shuttle crew cabin or smaller?
The astronauts deserve it? That's hardly justification to spend about $10
billion to develop the CEV and the stick.
Jeff Findley
<genedi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127226573.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> As far as CEV, Stick, and Big Rocket goes, we have come full circle
> back to an Apollo CSM, Saturn 1b and Saturn V. These were vehicles we
> should have never discarded and abandoned in the first place.
They were discarded because of the high cost. What makes you think the same
won't happen again? We are, after all, presented with a plan to spend more
time and money than Apollo, but end up with only a small improvement in
capability.
Joe Strout
wrote:
> That makes no sense. You have a spacecraft designed to operate
> outside of earth orbit, you make a few flights to the moon and then cancel
> the program? No.
If you can't be bothered to read history, at least watch it on the
History Channel. You're embarrassing yourself.
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| j...@strout.net http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
Cardman
<jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>Heavy lift isn't required for missions beyond LEO. It's a desire on NASA's
>part. There isn't any reason you can't launch all the pieces separately and
>assemble them in LEO. The biggest mass to launch for a Moon mission is the
>fuel and oxidizer to get you there and back. It's far easier to launch fuel
>and oxidizer on multiple launches to LEO than NASA would like you to think.
Sounds true enough to me. It would also be helpful to get more
economical use of their chosen launcher. Keep those people working on
the launcher working longer and harder, while the vastly larger
workforce for the SDHLV could all be fired (nothing personal!).
This large cut out their workforce alone would make more efficient use
of their budget. However, the best aspect is that at these lower
launch masses, then the commercial side can start to get in on the
action. This will allow NASA to both reduce their launch costs, and to
get out of the launch business for good.
The last I heard was that their SDHLV could put 14 tons directly on
the Moon. They could easily put much more mass into LEO, then to
launch the required fuel on a second launch.
The only issue here is in trying to cram things like a bulldozer into
the smaller payload fairing. Still, they could always send up the
parts to have this later assembled on the Moon.
Seems like a good idea to me for NASA to build a fuel station in LEO,
on the right orbit to later head on to the Moon. As then this fuel
would be already waiting before they launched their main missions,
where they can top up their fuel reserves as needed.
You can include some simple life support here to keep things flexible
and safe.
A cargo delivery CEV to operate between Earth and Lunar orbit is also
an idea, when to minimise costs and complexity, then you do not want
to launch more than big dumb cargo canisters.
The only issue is in servicing your CEV, where avoiding bringing this
back to Earth saves the heat shield mass. And to allow for the
lifeboat option, then you can just use two CEVs end to end.
Better yet remove the human aspect fully and just have an automated
system do this round trip, again, and again, and again. That way you
can just have your humans working on either end, with the more rare
trip between the two.
This plan would mostly swap the SDHLV for a LEO Fuel Station. So the
cost would be slightly cheaper to build, and a lot cheaper to operate.
I think you have to face the fact that NASA's whole plan is to
maximise their own budget. I would even go as far to say that the mass
of their CEV could be a direct lie in order to make it slightly above
the more commercial options. Not that their is any suitably good
commercial launcher yet available that is.
>But the plan isn't to colonize the moon. The plan is to have maybe four
>NASA missions per year to the moon with maybe a dozen or two *NASA*
>astronauts making that trip. This won't open up the moon to colonization in
>any real sense of the word.
Seems more like a case of having NASA appear to do something useful in
order to justify their human space launch budget.
From what I see they plan to do two human Moon visits per year,
starting with four people per trip. Later on they will build
themselves a base and to swap over the crew each six months.
If they actually do something useful here remains to be seen, but we
can certainly moan like hell until they do. What I would most like to
see is a mining operation that is turned into a large base. Fit a
airlock, seal the walls, then to pressurize.
Growing food on the Moon would also be important. As when you have
food to eat, water to drink, a place to live, power generation, and
air to breath, then you have the minimum required to maintain a
colony.
Even NASA could do that. They just need to work on a mostly self
supporting system, and to stop bringing their people and equipment
back. That alone is a miracle for them though, where you can see the
wonderful greenery on the ISS for proof.
Cardman.
Jeff Findley
"Cardman" <do-...@spam-me.com> wrote in message
news:m5d0j1prhi5f79iti...@4ax.com...
> A cargo delivery CEV to operate between Earth and Lunar orbit is also
> an idea, when to minimise costs and complexity, then you do not want
> to launch more than big dumb cargo canisters.
>
> The only issue is in servicing your CEV, where avoiding bringing this
> back to Earth saves the heat shield mass. And to allow for the
> lifeboat option, then you can just use two CEVs end to end.
The mass of fuel and oxidizer needed to brake your CEV into LEO would be far
higher than your heat shield mass. That's why people who look into this
start considering the use of aerobraking to reduce the mass of the fuel and
oxidizer needed.
> From what I see they plan to do two human Moon visits per year,
> starting with four people per trip. Later on they will build
> themselves a base and to swap over the crew each six months.
Sounds a lot like ISS doesn't it? It started out with man tended visits,
then switched over to crews of three (or two) that switch out every six
months.
> If they actually do something useful here remains to be seen, but we
> can certainly moan like hell until they do.
> What I would most like to
> see is a mining operation that is turned into a large base. Fit a
> airlock, seal the walls, then to pressurize.
NASA most certainly isn't planning on anything this large very soon. Given
the budget isn't much bigger than shuttle/ISS, I don't expect results to be
much beyond what we're currently seeing on ISS.
> Growing food on the Moon would also be important. As when you have
> food to eat, water to drink, a place to live, power generation, and
> air to breath, then you have the minimum required to maintain a
> colony.
Again, I doubt this will happen. For the money they've got to spend, I'd
expect to see a lunar base about the size of ISS. Anything bigger would
require fundamental changes in the ways that NASA does business, and the
stick, SDHLLV, and CEV are specifically designed to *not* require
fundamental changes to NASA's infrastructure (and costs).
> Even NASA could do that. They just need to work on a mostly self
> supporting system, and to stop bringing their people and equipment
> back. That alone is a miracle for them though, where you can see the
> wonderful greenery on the ISS for proof.
That's not going to happen the way that NASA is running things.
Reed Snellenberger
news:Xns96D6F160...@204.52.135.8:
> Reed Snellenberger <rsnelle...@houston-nospam-rr.com> wrote in
> news:Xns96D6D6D901C56rs...@24.93.43.119:
>
>> We get something that will initially be (at least) safer than Shuttle
>
> CEV claims to cut the risk of crew loss *during the ascent phase* by a
> factor of ten compared to the shuttle, but ascent risk is only about
> half the overall risk. And the remaining mission risks for CEV don't
> automatically drop just because the ascent risk dropped. So *at best*
> you're talking about a 50% risk reduction - and that's only after the
> spacecraft has flown enough times to demonstrate the level of design
> maturity the shuttle has *now*.
>
Risk at re-entry should also be reduced quite a bit, since a capsule
doesn't have the requirement to perform aerodynamic maneuvers during
entry and should be inherently stable as well.
>> and ultimately be more versatile than the orbiter.
>
> In the sense that it can go to the moon, yes. For LEO missions, it's
> way less versatile than the orbiter. In particular, "ISS assembly
> complete" is about to be redefined as "whatever state the station
> happens to be in whenever the shuttle stops flying, since there ain't
> no way CEV is going to do any meaningful assembly."
>
> That's perfectly alright as long as you don't pretend to have goals in
> LEO like ISS and keep the program focused on exploration beyond LEO.
> But those who pretend otherwise are going to be disappointed.
I'll grant that it won't be versatile enough to carry up ISS modules that
were specifically designed to be launched in the back of the shuttle.
However, we've already made the decision to end the Shuttle by 2010, so
saying that CEV is less versatile than shuttle because it can't install
modules that were specifically designed for the shuttle is a lot like
saying that Shuttle isn't as versatile as Apollo since it can't make it
to the moon. Different missions, different capabilities.
If a need arises to extend the station after Shuttle is retired, that
will be another mission. If someone wants to do that, they will just
have to develop (and fund) the tools to get the piece delivered and
installed.
--
I was punching a text message into my | Reed Snellenberger
phone yesterday and thought, "they need | GPG KeyID: 5A978843
to make a phone that you can just talk | rsnellenberger
into." Major Thomb | -at-houston.rr.com
Will
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2005 15:08:09 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
> <edky...@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
> way as to indicate that:
>
> >> plan?
> >
> >I think it provides a good roadmap for NASA to follow for
> >the next how-ever-many years. It is a great improvement
> >to the space shuttle era NASA framework.
> >
> >This is a plan that could very well, over time, lead to a
> >smaller, more focused NASA.
>
> More focused, certainly, but with the increasing budget, and the
> predilection to do more in house and less contracting, how is it
> smaller?
>
> >It is a plan that produces
> >something useful in the near-term - the CEV and CLV tools
> >that will replace shuttle and could by themselves, in
> >concert with commercial launch services and international
> >space station partners, serve as the framework for a long-
> >term human space program.
>
> For exactly the same (or more) cost as the Shuttle program.
>
> http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/005729.html#005729
I don't see how that follows from your figures. Two manned CEV launches
can handle ISS crew rotation, and four unmanned, with payload instead
of the capsule, can deliver more payload to ISS than the same number of
shuttle launches. If your figure of $3 billion is for annual program
cost, that's more than a billion less than what the shuttle costs to do
the same job.
Will McLean
Jeff Findley
"Reed Snellenberger" <rsnelle...@houston-nospam-rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D7817B8116Brs...@24.93.43.121...
> > factor of ten compared to the shuttle, but ascent risk is only about
> > half the overall risk. And the remaining mission risks for CEV don't
> > automatically drop just because the ascent risk dropped. So *at best*
> > you're talking about a 50% risk reduction - and that's only after the
> > spacecraft has flown enough times to demonstrate the level of design
> > maturity the shuttle has *now*.
>
> Risk at re-entry should also be reduced quite a bit, since a capsule
> doesn't have the requirement to perform aerodynamic maneuvers during
> entry and should be inherently stable as well.
But it has the option to do so. Just as Apollo did, you simply offset the
CG a bit to give you a bit of lift. Then all you do is roll the spacecraft
so that the lift vector is in the desired direction. This was primarily
used to perform a lifting reentry, which reduces the g-loads experienced,
which is important when your reentry is being performed at lunar return
velocities. This can also improve landing accuracy quite a bit.
Note that Soyuz does the same thing. If something fails, Soyuz performs a
continuous roll, resulting in a ballistic trajectory, with significantly
higher g loads than with a nominal lifting trajectory. While far more
uncomfortable than a lifting trajectory, crews have lived through ballistic
reentries of Soyuz.
> > In the sense that it can go to the moon, yes. For LEO missions, it's
> > way less versatile than the orbiter. In particular, "ISS assembly
> > complete" is about to be redefined as "whatever state the station
> > happens to be in whenever the shuttle stops flying, since there ain't
> > no way CEV is going to do any meaningful assembly."
> >
> > That's perfectly alright as long as you don't pretend to have goals in
> > LEO like ISS and keep the program focused on exploration beyond LEO.
> > But those who pretend otherwise are going to be disappointed.
>
> I'll grant that it won't be versatile enough to carry up ISS modules that
> were specifically designed to be launched in the back of the shuttle.
> However, we've already made the decision to end the Shuttle by 2010, so
> saying that CEV is less versatile than shuttle because it can't install
> modules that were specifically designed for the shuttle is a lot like
> saying that Shuttle isn't as versatile as Apollo since it can't make it
> to the moon. Different missions, different capabilities.
>
> If a need arises to extend the station after Shuttle is retired, that
> will be another mission. If someone wants to do that, they will just
> have to develop (and fund) the tools to get the piece delivered and
> installed.
Griffin mentioned this in his talk. While he's personally against launching
ISS modules on "the stick", he did say it would be possible, but it would
take time and money. You'd have to develop a strongback to mimic the
shuttle's payload bay attach points, and would likely have to requalify the
module being launched for launch on "the stick". That only gets the payload
to LEO.
I'm guessing here, but the two ways you could get from your initial orbit to
ISS would be the way Pirs was delivered (take a CEV service module and use
that to maneuver and dock or grapple the module to ISS or the SSRMS) or you
launch a CEV on a separate launch and have it dock with and deliver the
strong back/ISS module to ISS.
Again, that would take funds and additional development beyond the CEV
requirements, so naturally it's going to cost you more money to do such a
thing. Lastly, if you were to do such a thing, why limit yourself to the
stick and CEV? Why not launch on Ariane V and use the ATV's propulsion
module to do this mission? Perhaps even launch on Proton and use a TKS
derived service module to do the mission. The answer there is the same,
cost.
Derek Lyons
>CEV recreates Apollo and Soyuz but bear in mind that Soyuz was the
>Russian equivalent to Apollo.
Not really - Soyuz started out as an independent orbiter and became a
dedicated space taxi. Apollo started as a space taxi/general purpose
orbiter and became a dedicated long range/long duration lunar craft.
>Also understand that back in the early 60's Apollo was to be more than
>just a moon vehicle. It was meant to be the standard taxi to take
>astronauts to work.
You've got that quite backwards - it started as a standard taxi but
became an optimized lunar vehicle.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Cardman
<jeff.f...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:
>"Cardman" <do-...@spam-me.com> wrote in message
>news:m5d0j1prhi5f79iti...@4ax.com...
>> A cargo delivery CEV to operate between Earth and Lunar orbit is also
>> an idea, when to minimise costs and complexity, then you do not want
>> to launch more than big dumb cargo canisters.
>>
>> The only issue is in servicing your CEV, where avoiding bringing this
>> back to Earth saves the heat shield mass. And to allow for the
>> lifeboat option, then you can just use two CEVs end to end.
>
>The mass of fuel and oxidizer needed to brake your CEV into LEO would be far
>higher than your heat shield mass. That's why people who look into this
>start considering the use of aerobraking to reduce the mass of the fuel and
>oxidizer needed.
Yes, that is correct. Although this is not my area of knowledge, but I
am quite sure that a returning CEV can do a path involving
aero-breaking within the Earth's atmosphere, before coming back out
and doing the orbital burn.
This would also allow the option of a direct reentry.
I see that one NASA's greatest crimes at the moment is to not store
fuel in orbit. That first step is a huge one, where the less mass you
need to launch the better. So it is quite insane to build a monster
rocket like the SDHLV to just put 14 tons on the Moon.
You could say that NASA is currently like the tourist who plans an
around world trip, in their family car, by taking all their fuel with
them. Space is exactly like here on Earth, when the more refueling
points you have the better off you are.
With a fuel station in orbit, then your upper stage during launch can
be reused to do your TLI burn. This one step automatically removes the
need for the SDHLV, the ~$8 billion build cost, and the army of people
needed to work on it.
So within the ideal future one of NASA's main points of business would
be just to launch fuel into LEO to dock with their fuel station. And
it seems like a very good idea to me to have the commercial people
work on exactly this aspect.
And so since I doubt that NASA could justify that their current plan
is better than this one, then that is why I would question just why
they should be allowed to do it?
>> From what I see they plan to do two human Moon visits per year,
>> starting with four people per trip. Later on they will build
>> themselves a base and to swap over the crew each six months.
>
>Sounds a lot like ISS doesn't it? It started out with man tended visits,
>then switched over to crews of three (or two) that switch out every six
>months.
Their whole Moon and beyond plan can often sound like an ISS on the
Moon, and an ISS flying through space. And considering the disaster of
the current ISS, then I am quite sure that they should be banned from
trying to do that again.
So this is time for NASA to be creative and efficient. Their plan to
use the SDHLV does not provide much faith.
>> What I would most like to
>> see is a mining operation that is turned into a large base. Fit a
>> airlock, seal the walls, then to pressurize.
>
>NASA most certainly isn't planning on anything this large very soon. Given
>the budget isn't much bigger than shuttle/ISS, I don't expect results to be
>much beyond what we're currently seeing on ISS.
I do not see that this is seriously hard thing to do. It would be a
strange idea to think that despite all of NASA's advanced technology
that they could not even make a hole in the ground.
Since this technology already exists on Earth, then reworking it for
Moon use should not be too hard. Best of all is that if you pressurize
early, then it is almost exactly like it is done on Earth.
The bigger your mine the bigger your living space could be. This can
certainly include entire crops of fruit and vegetables grown under
artificial lighting. You could even have a dairy farm.
>Again, I doubt this will happen. For the money they've got to spend, I'd
>expect to see a lunar base about the size of ISS.
This I would more term NASA's caravan.
The mine base seems a better idea to me, when only by moving Moon dirt
and rocks you can build your living structure without having to
require much from Earth.
This you could say is part of the "living off the land" concept.
>Anything bigger would require fundamental changes in the ways that NASA
>does business,
NASA could contract a mining company to do the work. Train their best
and brightest to be astronauts, then set them to work on some suitable
hill side.
Just given time they could provide you with far more space than you
would ever need in the short term.
>and the
>stick, SDHLLV, and CEV are specifically designed to *not* require
>fundamental changes to NASA's infrastructure (and costs).
That is exactly the problem. It is about time that NASA off loaded all
their jobs to the commercial companies. As I said this is all NASA's
attempt to keep the money and jobs at home.
This is exactly why they try to keep it commercial free.
>> Even NASA could do that. They just need to work on a mostly self
>> supporting system, and to stop bringing their people and equipment
>> back. That alone is a miracle for them though, where you can see the
>> wonderful greenery on the ISS for proof.
>
>That's not going to happen the way that NASA is running things.
Then NASA should change or to make way for some organization who
would. As if NASA's fails to do well, then say the Chinese won't aim
to do as badly.
NASA's only job on the Moon should be to build a self-sustaining
colony that can grow and evolve. And when they reach that vital point,
then so should they start shipping in your common engineers,
scientists, doctors, farmers, etc.
The more skilled people that they have at their base the more that
they could then do. And since this is self-sustaining, then it costs
NASA nothing beyond a higher common wage and the ticket to the Moon
and back again.
Start shipping in entire families later on, then you would be close to
making your first Lunar City. A nice dream sure, but it is certainly
possible to do this.
NASA can then get to work on their Mars colony.
Cardman.
Derek Lyons
>
>"Derek Lyons" <fair...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4332c07d...@supernews.seanet.com...
>> "Ray" <vze3...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>We humans are explorers. This is normal for us.
>>
>> As a race? Not really. The bulk of the race is very solidly
>> stay-at-home, take-no-risk, eat-only-what-grandpa-ate.
>
> Not true. If that were true, our primitive predecessors would not
>have gotten out of Africa. We humans might have become that way over that
>last 200 years, but we are explorers by heart, and we need to be inspired
>and shown the way.
Demonstrably true - all you need is a tiny percentage of pathfinders
and explorers to blaze the trail and drive back enough nasties to make
the slightly less adventurous follow them, which eventually further
reduces the danger and even less adventurous follow them... Lather,
rinse, repeat.
Furthermore, one doesn't need to be a brave adventurer to cross
continents on a span of decades or centuries - if each generation
settles half a days walk from the previous, you can cross vast spans
without actually being that bold.
>I think its pathetic how people are against human space exploration.
Few here are against exploration - most are against stunts disguised
as exploration.
>Another problem is that people are cheap with tax money. They don't want
>it wasted, so give it back in a tax break and watch how they spend it
>important things like alcohol, tobacco, drugs and gambling.
You must live in a very interesting universe - one that bears little
relationship to the one the rest of us inhabit.
Derek Lyons
>Long distance exploration has been a desperate, dangerous, last-resort
>behavior, undertaken by fringe elements or individuals who would otherwise
>have been failures.
Nit: A lack of resources can drive a population mobile - but that's
the exception that proves the rule.
Derek Lyons
>Didn't they say that for Shuttle, and promise the shuttle would be fully
>reusable with little/no maintenance required between flights and fly at
>very low costs many times per month ?
They also promised great things for Apollo - but they get a pass for
failing there. (Failing for much the same reasons as Shuttle failed.)