We lost half a century!

Judging from the plans salvaged by The Orlando Sentinel the 'new' Moon plans
look like a continuation of the Apollo project, *on a tight budget*. I'm
even more skeptical of the claim that the hardware can be reused for a Mars
misson.

The reuse of Shuttle hardware to built a hardware booster and a crew launch
vehicle seems sensible given the cost constraints, but the usage of a solid
first stage seems risky to me.

It all boils down to the fact that we're continuing where Apollo left off,
only now NASA will have to do it on a shoestring budget. I'm pretty sure the
Mars plans will be either shelved or a more realistic budget will need to be
drawn up, probably involving international partners.

Henk Boonsma wrote:

It all boils down to the fact that we're continuing where Apollo left off,
only now NASA will have to do it on a shoestring budget.

Sometimes a smaller budget is a good thing. It can be
harder to make yourself efficient if you're wallowing
in unlimited funds.

I get the impression that Griffin is really emphasizing
economy and efficiency in the planning, and that this
emphasis is not entirely familiar to NASA.

Paul

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:55:26 +0200, "Henk Boonsma"
wrote:

Judging from the plans salvaged by The Orlando Sentinel the 'new' Moon plans
look like a continuation of the Apollo project, *on a tight budget*.

That is indeed true enough. The only real difference is a large
technology update. However, in this case it is not "flags and
footprints", but construction, exploration, research and still going
places where no one has been before.

I'm even more skeptical of the claim that the hardware can be reused for a
Mars misson.

And you are right to be. This system would indeed need a serious
upgrade before NASA launched anyone towards Mars.

The reuse of Shuttle hardware to built a hardware booster and a crew launch
vehicle seems sensible given the cost constraints, but the usage of a solid
first stage seems risky to me.

The SRBs carry some risk, but NASA has not yet messed up in that area
at least. There is also no better option for getting some nice mass
quick and cheap into orbit and beyond.

Their astronauts will certainly have a rapid and bumpy ride to orbit
now that these SRBs are not being held back by the Shuttle and ET
mass.

It all boils down to the fact that we're continuing where Apollo left off,
only now NASA will have to do it on a shoestring budget.

That seems like a good idea. Innovation.

I'm pretty sure the Mars plans will be either shelved or a more realistic
budget will need to be drawn up, probably involving international partners.

NASA will not be allowed to go to Mars any time soon. First they have
to prove that they will not make another ISS on the Moon.

What you certainly could see in the near "moon phase" future is a few
trips to some asteroids. Near Earth asteroids I should mention, when
something like Ceres is a before "mars phase" thing.

It should certainly be interesting to see how they will be able to
stick to a low mass object. No doubt going about like a rock climber
does it. Otherwise it is one bounce and you go into orbit.

Before all this they have to find their water. Just like any colony
plan needs to first do. Asteroids have water. Just a shame about all
the other gunk that comes mixed it. It could be easily filtered into
pure water at least.

Cardman.

"Cardman" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:55:26 +0200, "Henk Boonsma"
wrote:

Judging from the plans salvaged by The Orlando Sentinel the 'new' Moon
plans
look like a continuation of the Apollo project, *on a tight budget*.

That is indeed true enough. The only real difference is a large
technology update. However, in this case it is not "flags and
footprints", but construction, exploration, research and still going
places where no one has been before.

I'm even more skeptical of the claim that the hardware can be reused for
a
Mars misson.

And you are right to be. This system would indeed need a serious
upgrade before NASA launched anyone towards Mars.

The reuse of Shuttle hardware to built a hardware booster and a crew
launch
vehicle seems sensible given the cost constraints, but the usage of a
solid
first stage seems risky to me.

The SRBs carry some risk, but NASA has not yet messed up in that area
at least. There is also no better option for getting some nice mass
quick and cheap into orbit and beyond.

Their astronauts will certainly have a rapid and bumpy ride to orbit
now that these SRBs are not being held back by the Shuttle and ET
mass.

I was thinking the same thing! The G-forces will be almost unbearable when
this thing rockets off the launch pad, I'm pretty sure that it will require
some training to withstand and will toughen the medical requirements for
aspiring astronauts. The ride is certainly not something you would want
paying passengers to endure.

Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Henk Boonsma wrote:

: It all boils down to the fact that we're continuing where Apollo left off,
: only now NASA will have to do it on a shoestring budget.

: Sometimes a smaller budget is a good thing. It can be
: harder to make yourself efficient if you're wallowing
: in unlimited funds.

: I get the impression that Griffin is really emphasizing
: economy and efficiency in the planning, and that this
: emphasis is not entirely familiar to NASA.

I guess you were spleeping when Goldin was stressing his "faster, better,
cheaper" approach in the 1990s?

Eric

: Paul

Eric Chomko wrote:
Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Henk Boonsma wrote:

: It all boils down to the fact that we're continuing where Apollo left off,
: only now NASA will have to do it on a shoestring budget.

: Sometimes a smaller budget is a good thing. It can be
: harder to make yourself efficient if you're wallowing
: in unlimited funds.

I guess you were spleeping when Goldin was stressing his "faster, better,
cheaper" approach in the 1990s?

As opposed to the Slower, Better, Costlier approach that
gave us the $1 billion Mars Observer fiasco, used up
the careers of an entire generation of space scientists
to get Galileo into space, and produced the space shuttle?

I agree with Paul, some of the best innovations come
on shoestring budgets. Stuff like the Wright Flyer, the
Travel Air Mystery Ship, the DC-3 (developed during the
darkest days of the Great Depression), the ElectroMotive
567 diesel engine (also a Depression baby - this was the
engine that made steam locomotives obsolete) and all
of those computer gadgets built in garages during the
1980s that led to the creation of outfits like Apple and
Microsoft and put a computer in every house, classroom,
library, car, and briefcase, etc.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: : Henk Boonsma wrote:
:
: : It all boils down to the fact that we're continuing where Apollo left off,
: : only now NASA will have to do it on a shoestring budget.
:
: : Sometimes a smaller budget is a good thing. It can be
: : harder to make yourself efficient if you're wallowing
: : in unlimited funds.
:
: I guess you were spleeping when Goldin was stressing his "faster, better,
: cheaper" approach in the 1990s?

: As opposed to the Slower, Better, Costlier approach that
: gave us the $1 billion Mars Observer fiasco, used up
: the careers of an entire generation of space scientists
: to get Galileo into space, and produced the space shuttle?

Seems that the MERs success has righted that ship. You won't mention that
part due to bias.

: I agree with Paul, some of the best innovations come
: on shoestring budgets. Stuff like the Wright Flyer, the
: Travel Air Mystery Ship, the DC-3 (developed during the
: darkest days of the Great Depression), the ElectroMotive
: 567 diesel engine (also a Depression baby - this was the
: engine that made steam locomotives obsolete) and all
: of those computer gadgets built in garages during the
: 1980s that led to the creation of outfits like Apple and
: Microsoft and put a computer in every house, classroom,
: library, car, and briefcase, etc.

Yes, your hatred of government funding of any kind has you thinking like
that. Don't want a grant, then don't apply for one. And stop acting like
others shouldn't get one either.

I can site the early computers in Aberdeen, the Internet as well as a
multitude of other government funded operations to counter your argument.
The difference is that I like BOTH private sector and public sector
breakthroughs in science and technology, whereas you only want to
acknowledge the private sector side.

Eric

: - Ed Kyle

Eric Chomko wrote:
Ed Kyle ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: : Henk Boonsma wrote:
:
: : It all boils down to the fact that we're continuing where Apollo left off,
: : only now NASA will have to do it on a shoestring budget.
:
: : Sometimes a smaller budget is a good thing. It can be
: : harder to make yourself efficient if you're wallowing
: : in unlimited funds.
:
: I guess you were spleeping when Goldin was stressing his "faster, better,
: cheaper" approach in the 1990s?

: As opposed to the Slower, Better, Costlier approach that
: gave us the $1 billion Mars Observer fiasco, used up
: the careers of an entire generation of space scientists
: to get Galileo into space, and produced the space shuttle?

Seems that the MERs success has righted that ship. You won't mention that
part due to bias.

At only $400 million each, with a short 34 month
development timeline, and using techniques devised
during the Mars Pathfinder mission, with was a
Faster-Better-Cheaper (FBC) mission, the MERs are a
lot closer to FBC than to the traditional Battlestar
missions.

: I agree with Paul, some of the best innovations come
: on shoestring budgets.

Yes, your hatred of government funding of any kind has you thinking like
that. Don't want a grant, then don't apply for one. And stop acting like
others shouldn't get one either.

Huh? Who said that I hate government funding? Did
I? I'm sure we can find interesting, successful
government projects that were run on a shoestring,
like Pathfinder for example.

- Ed Kyle

Ed Kyle wrote:
At only $400 million each,

Actual costs for the 2 landers were internally
described as in the $1.6 billion range before
overruns, according to my sources.


-george william herbert

Ed Kyle ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Ed Kyle ) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: : : Henk Boonsma wrote:
: :
: : : It all boils down to the fact that we're continuing where Apollo left off,
: : : only now NASA will have to do it on a shoestring budget.
: :
: : : Sometimes a smaller budget is a good thing. It can be
: : : harder to make yourself efficient if you're wallowing
: : : in unlimited funds.
: :
: : I guess you were spleeping when Goldin was stressing his "faster, better,
: : cheaper" approach in the 1990s?
:
: : As opposed to the Slower, Better, Costlier approach that
: : gave us the $1 billion Mars Observer fiasco, used up
: : the careers of an entire generation of space scientists
: : to get Galileo into space, and produced the space shuttle?
:
: Seems that the MERs success has righted that ship. You won't mention that
: part due to bias.

: At only $400 million each, with a short 34 month
: development timeline, and using techniques devised
: during the Mars Pathfinder mission, with was a
: Faster-Better-Cheaper (FBC) mission, the MERs are a
: lot closer to FBC than to the traditional Battlestar
: missions.

: : I agree with Paul, some of the best innovations come
: : on shoestring budgets.
:
: Yes, your hatred of government funding of any kind has you thinking like
: that. Don't want a grant, then don't apply for one. And stop acting like
: others shouldn't get one either.

: Huh? Who said that I hate government funding? Did
: I? I'm sure we can find interesting, successful
: government projects that were run on a shoestring,
: like Pathfinder for example.

Ed, I was referring to Paul, sorry for any confusion.

Eric

: - Ed Kyle