NASA to Start From Scratch in New [Moon/Mars Exploration] Effort

My comments in [brackets]


Found at:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/scie...rint&position=


January 9, 2004

NASA to Start From Scratch in New Effort

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 10:27 a.m. ET

If NASA returns astronauts to the moon and then takes aim at
Mars, the agency will have to go back to the drawing board
to get the job done.



[Not necessarily. There are a few things that will need
to be developed, but the major components for Moon/Mars
missions are already in place at NASA, and are proven
technology that has performed reliably for many years.]



The rockets, equipment and engineers that put American
footprints on lunar soil have long been lost, junked or
retired.



[Yes, but NASA has better, or equivalent equipment already
on hand. This means tens of billions of dollars will be
saved because such things as the space shuttle launch
system; space station equipment and other infrastructure has
already been developed and paid for and all of it can be
incorporated into the Moon/Mars exploration plans.]




For the seven moon-landing missions from 1969 through 1972,
NASA built craft designed specifically for single landings
and short stays.



[That is correct, and we will want to do it differently
this time since we are planning on staying.]




The command ship accommodated three astronauts and the
lunar lander only two. The reserves of power and propulsion
were tightly budgeted, a problem that almost cost the lives
of the astronauts on the only failed landing mission, Apollo
13.



[With the use of large-capacity cargo launch vehicles, we
can eliminate this problem. We have the perfect launch
system to do this, the space shuttle launch system. Instead
of launching space shuttles, we can launch cargo and
propellants, using the space shuttle's launch system (the
large orange External Tank (ET), the solid rocket boosters,
and space shuttle main engines, among other things).]




Apollo was drilled into space with the giant Saturn V
rocket, the most powerful launcher ever built by the United
States.



[True, but the space shuttle launch system is not far
behind the Saturn 5. Saturn 5 could launch approximately
130 tons of cargo into low-Earth orbit, while the space
shuttle launch system can put approximately 105 tons of
cargo into orbit, and with more powerful solid rocket
boosters that NASA is already developing, and perhaps a
stretched ET, the space shuttle launch system will be able
to launch even more tonnage. Contrast this with using the
space shuttle to put cargo in space: the space shuttle can
carry a maximum of 30 tons of cargo in its cargo bay and the
volume of the cargo is limited to 45 ft. by 15 ft in
diameter. None of these limitations would apply to a space
shuttle-derived cargo launcher because the 75 ton space
shuttle would be eliminated to allow an additional 75 tons
of cargo (total 105 tons of cargo), and since the cargo
container would be mounted on the External Tank at launch
just as the space shuttle is mounted (externally) the size
of the cargo container could be as large in size as the
External Tank itself (153 ft long by 27 ft in diameter) In
fact, a second ET might make a good cargo container.]




After the Apollo program ended, the equipment, tools and
plans for building the rocket were lost.




[As I explained, we don't need the Saturn 5 to do these
missions. We have a fine heavy-lift vehicle already, and
already paid for, plus the launch infrastructure and the
people to maintain it, and it is all already in place
waiting for our space program leaders to wake up and use
them in this way.]




A new lunar and Mars effort could require even larger lift
rockets, depending on the mission scheme selected.




[That is not true. Larger launch vehicles would be nice,
but they are not necessary, especially since we already have
a launch system that can perform these tasks.]




For an extended lunar expedition, which sources said
Thursday is what President Bush has in mind, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration would need to design
and build a large mother ship, able to transport a number of
crew members and a large inventory of supplies and
equipment.




[The External Tank is made up of two tanks: the larger
one, on the bottom, which is two-thirds of the length of the
ET is the hydrogen propellant tank; and the smaller tank, on
the top, which is one-third of the length of the ET holds
the oxygen. This ET oxygen tank is large enough to
accomdate 12 astronauts, and can be equipped with
life-support equipment and supplies that would be sufficient
for 12 astronauts for 90 days. The studies of this approach
have already been done.]




If the mission design follows the Apollo plan, the agency
also would have to build a landing craft able to ferry crew
and supplies between the moon's surface and a command ship
in lunar orbit.




[The one piece of space hardware we do not have is a
transfer vehicle that would take us to the Moon and back to
Earth. But with the hardware developed for the space
station, and with a heavy-lift launch vehicle to put
propellants in orbit, it should not be too hard or expensive
to get an orbital transfer vehicle up and running.]




A colony on the moon almost certainly would require an
atomic reactor for power.




[No, this is not necessary for the Moon. Solar power
would be more than sufficient. A reactor might be needed on
Mars, though.]




Some small reactors were used on six Apollo missions, but
they were designed to produce just enough electrical power
to operate scientific instruments left on the surface.




[I believe NASA is currently developing a new small
nuclear reactor.]




For Mars, everything required by a moon voyage would have to
be multiplied, perhaps many fold. Some who have studied Mars
exploration say a manned expedition would last at least
three years, with long voyage out and back, and just a
limited stay.



[Putting a base on the Moon will be good practice for
sending humans to Mars. All of the things developed and
proven for the Moon base can also be applied to a Mars
base.]




All fuel, water and other supplies would have to be carried
along or sent ahead on robot craft.




[Mars has water on its surface, and this would eventually
solve the fuel and water problems, although initially,
everything would have to be sent from Earth. Using the
space shuttle launch system, we can do this launching much
cheaper than any other way that is currently available.]




The crew size would have to be expanded to allow for
sickness or death that is likely for such a risky
expedition.



[Maybe, maybe not.]



Over the years, NASA has conducted a number of basic studies
aimed at achieving the moon and Mars.


[Dozens of studies.]




The Apollo missions depended on the powerful three-stage
Saturn V rocket that vaulted the craft into Earth orbit and
then restarted to drill it toward the moon. After leaving
Earth orbit, the third stage of the Saturn V was discarded
and the momentum of the rocket firing carried the craft
outward until it slipped into the grip of lunar orbit. It
was rather like throwing up a baseball that was then
captured at the top of its arc by the moon's gravity.





[The space shuttle launch system could launch a 30-ton
Moonbase, large enough for 12 people, with supplies for 90
days, and all the propellants needed to fly directly to the
Moon and land (it takes about 80 tons of hydrogen and oxygen
to get the Moonbase to the Moon and land it.]





Just after he took over as NASA administrator, Sean O'Keefe
said the Apollo technique was simply too slow for
exploration beyond Earth orbit and that a new propulsion
method would be needed for long space voyages.




[Three days to the Moon, which is how long it took the
Apollo vehicle to reach the Moon, isn't too shabby. I doubt
we could cut the time down much without developing some
exotic technology and spending lots of money. Three day
journeys are fine for our purposes when traveling to the
Moon.]




NASA has tested an ion rocket system that could be used to
continually accelerate a spacecraft with a steady pulse
after the craft leaves Earth orbit. Such a rocket could trim
the three days that Apollo needed to reach the moon and
shorten the voyage to Mars by months.




[We could certainly use the ion propulsion system for Mars
exploration, although a nuclear-powered propulsion system
would probably be better. We don't need the ion drive for
Moon exploration.]




Some experts have suggested that robot craft loaded with
supplies and equipment could be landed on the moon and Mars
ahead of an astronaut crew.



[No doubt about it. That is the way it will be done.]




That way the mothership could be reserved for the human
crew, which would use the supplies upon arrival.



[That's the way it should and will be done.]




NASA also has done studies on shelters for the lunar
surface, on vehicles that could be used for transport and on
new surface space suits. It also has studied the possibility
of extracting rocket propellant and oxygen from lunar soil,
or from any water deposits that might be discovered on the
moon or Mars.



[The space program has been working towards these goals
for decades and we are quickly coming to a time when we will
have all our ducks in a row. As long as we use the shuttle
launch system to put our cargo in orbit. Using the space
shuttle itself to do this job would be a disaster and a
failure.]




No firm cost estimates have been developed, but informal
discussions have put the cost of a Mars expedition at nearly
$1 trillion, depending on how ambitious the project was.




[That is a ridiculous figure. Eighty billion or less is
closer for a Mars base. The trillion dollar figure was
derived using the space shuttle as the cargo carrier.
That's why using the space shuttle to launch cargo is the
road to failure. The project wouldn't even get off the
drawing board because of the costs.]




The cost of a moon colony, again, would depend on what NASA
wants to do on the lunar surface.




[My guess is we could do a Moon mission for under $40
billion and probably a lot less if we use the space hardware
and infrastructure we already have in place. We could build
the Moonbase for approximately $15 billion; four launches of
a shuttle-derived heavy-lift cargo vehicle (to keep
astronauts supplied for a full year on the Moon) would cost
approximately $4 billion (on the high side) or less; and
developing a lunar transfer vehicle would probably cost NASA
$5 billion to develop (NASA is not very cost efficient They
are a bureacracy, after all. ]



end



And why should we establish a base on the Moon? Well, for
one thing, we could use a small percentage of the Moon's
surface as a solar power farm that could harvest solar power
and safely beam it back to Earth in the form of microwaves,
where it would be converted to electricity for people on
Earth. Such a farm has the potential to supply ALL the
electricity needs of the Earth without polluting Earth's
environment. What's it worth to eliminate all the
coal-fired and nuclear reactors on Earth? Quite a bit, I
would say. Helium 3 is also abundant on the Moon (scarce on
Earth), which could be used to power non-polluting fusion
reactors to supply electricity.


As for the Mars exploration, I think we will almost
certainly use one of Mars' two large moons, Phobos or Deimos
as a staging base in advance of actually landing on Mars.
This will reduce the risks and possibly the costs, since
there may be raw materials on these Moons that we can use to
our benefit, eliminating the necessity of sending so much
cargo from Earth, and reducing the costs.


The shuttle-derived, heavy-lift launch vehicle is the key
to all of this. Without it, the costs will be too great.

Every official commission that has studied the matter of
Moon and Mars exploration over the last few decades has said
a heavy-lift cargo vehicle is *essential* to the success of
these endeavors.

They are correct. The good news is we already have such a
heavy-lift vehicle (with some minor alterations) in the
space shuttle launch system. All we have to do is convince
the powers that be at NASA to use this hardware and
infrastructure. Maybe this time, they will listen.

Yeah, I know, I'm an eternal optimist.


TA

: [The one piece of space hardware we do not have is a
: transfer vehicle that would take us to the Moon and back to
: Earth. But with the hardware developed for the space
: station, and with a heavy-lift launch vehicle to put
: propellants in orbit, it should not be too hard or expensive
: to get an orbital transfer vehicle up and running.]

"not too hard or expensive" -- I can't help but chuckle.

: No firm cost estimates have been developed, but informal
: discussions have put the cost of a Mars expedition at nearly
: $1 trillion, depending on how ambitious the project was.

: [That is a ridiculous figure. Eighty billion or less is
: closer for a Mars base. The trillion dollar figure was
: derived using the space shuttle as the cargo carrier.
: That's why using the space shuttle to launch cargo is the
: road to failure. The project wouldn't even get off the
: drawing board because of the costs.]

When talking about spending, most of the time the government
lowballs. From local coverage here in Houston/JSC, there is already buzzing
about "stripping the cupboard" to pay for this new initiative. They aren't
too worried locally, cuz if it's manned JSC will be a major player -- but
a lot of people working on 'peripheral' (i.e. not manned) projects are
getting edgy. What about the big plans to explore the solar system (most
importantly probes to distant planets)? And suddenly a space station
doesn't seem important?
I agree with incremental improvements in manned systems, but I
don't think we've yet reached the limitations on much cheaper/safer/faster
unmanned missions that can expand our knowledge where we need it most
(including everywhere other than the moon and mars). I don't see any point
in sending people up to do work that could be done by machine -- and let's
face it in this day and age machines can do a *lot*. In 1969 just carrying
back a moon rock was phenomenal -- but we are past that now. The sophisticated
gear and vast data volumes are not likely to be analyzed by a space crew in
any case -- their role is mainly to make sure the gear is working and the
recorders are going. If you can automate that.... Specifically, if a man
landed on Mars, what could he/she do that the current rover can not or could
not do? Why pay an extra XXX billion just so a human can hold the camera?
It's a controversial subject, I know, but I believe that the heart
of exploration is gaining knowledge/data. Actual physical presence is just
a sometimes needed (sometimes not) adjunct. Of course, no plans are really
far enough along to criticize, but I don't think I'll be happy with just
sending someone there to "plant a flag" until we've exhausted our other
options.

regards,
----------------------------------------------------------






: The cost of a moon colony, again, would depend on what NASA
: wants to do on the lunar surface.




: [My guess is we could do a Moon mission for under $40
: billion and probably a lot less if we use the space hardware
: and infrastructure we already have in place. We could build
: the Moonbase for approximately $15 billion; four launches of
: a shuttle-derived heavy-lift cargo vehicle (to keep
: astronauts supplied for a full year on the Moon) would cost
: approximately $4 billion (on the high side) or less; and
: developing a lunar transfer vehicle would probably cost NASA
: $5 billion to develop (NASA is not very cost efficient They
: are a bureacracy, after all. ]



: end



: And why should we establish a base on the Moon? Well, for
: one thing, we could use a small percentage of the Moon's
: surface as a solar power farm that could harvest solar power
: and safely beam it back to Earth in the form of microwaves,
: where it would be converted to electricity for people on
: Earth. Such a farm has the potential to supply ALL the
: electricity needs of the Earth without polluting Earth's
: environment. What's it worth to eliminate all the
: coal-fired and nuclear reactors on Earth? Quite a bit, I
: would say. Helium 3 is also abundant on the Moon (scarce on
: Earth), which could be used to power non-polluting fusion
: reactors to supply electricity.


: As for the Mars exploration, I think we will almost
: certainly use one of Mars' two large moons, Phobos or Deimos
: as a staging base in advance of actually landing on Mars.
: This will reduce the risks and possibly the costs, since
: there may be raw materials on these Moons that we can use to
: our benefit, eliminating the necessity of sending so much
: cargo from Earth, and reducing the costs.


: The shuttle-derived, heavy-lift launch vehicle is the key
: to all of this. Without it, the costs will be too great.

: Every official commission that has studied the matter of
: Moon and Mars exploration over the last few decades has said
: a heavy-lift cargo vehicle is *essential* to the success of
: these endeavors.

: They are correct. The good news is we already have such a
: heavy-lift vehicle (with some minor alterations) in the
: space shuttle launch system. All we have to do is convince
: the powers that be at NASA to use this hardware and
: infrastructure. Maybe this time, they will listen.

: Yeah, I know, I'm an eternal optimist.


: TA

Tom Abbott wrote:
My comments in [brackets]
[With the use of large-capacity cargo launch vehicles, we
can eliminate this problem. We have the perfect launch
system to do this, the space shuttle launch system. Instead
of launching space shuttles, we can launch cargo and
propellants, using the space shuttle's launch system (the
large orange External Tank (ET), the solid rocket boosters,
and space shuttle main engines, among other things).]

You seem to be fixated on using the shuttle launch system for sending missions to the
moon. The shuttle launch system was designed to launch shuttles to LEO, period. The 3 SMEs
are on the shuttle - you would mount them on some new return vehicle? No, if you are going
to build new capsules, manned round trip lunar landers, and unmanned one way lunar
habitation landers, you might as well bite the bullet and build a new grandson of Saturn V
launch system for it.

I could see using an upgraded Delta IV heavy to send small cargo supply ships (such as
Progress does) to the moon and ISS.


A colony on the moon almost certainly would require an
atomic reactor for power.

[No, this is not necessary for the Moon. Solar power
would be more than sufficient. A reactor might be needed on
Mars, though.]

Solar power would work for the 2 weeks of sunlight. The lack of atmosphere does help in
that the solar power output would be constant (with a tracker) so long as the sun is above
the horizon - no clouds or atmospheric attenuation to worry about. But what will you do
for power during the approx 2 weeks of night? You could, and likely would, use the solar
power to charge up a battery bank. But a battery bank big enough to last 2 weeks would
present serious weight and thermal issues (have to keep the battery temperatures up).
Perhaps they could use RTGS for power during the night in combination with batteries, but
that would present sever power constraints for the base.

No, a compact and reliable nuclear reactor is something that needs to be developed if we
are to get serious about permanent space colonies. But this will be a significant cost
item and controversial to boot with the anti-nuke crowd.

I would expect the first several return to the moon missions will be limited to daylight
visits only. But even a 10 day stay is still 3 times longer than the Apollo missions.

Alan Figgatt

Alan Figgatt wrote:
Tom Abbott wrote:

My comments in [brackets]
[With the use of large-capacity cargo launch vehicles, we
can eliminate this problem. We have the perfect launch
system to do this, the space shuttle launch system. Instead
of launching space shuttles, we can launch cargo and
propellants, using the space shuttle's launch system (the
large orange External Tank (ET), the solid rocket boosters,
and space shuttle main engines, among other things).]


You seem to be fixated on using the shuttle launch system for sending
missions to the
moon.

You're new here, aren't you?


Go to google and do a search on newsgroup for Tom. You'll be able to
get a good feel for the way he wants to develop things.

Charles Buckley wrote:

Alan Figgatt wrote:

You seem to be fixated on using the shuttle launch system for sending
missions to the
moon.

You're new here, aren't you?


Go to google and do a search on newsgroup for Tom. You'll be able to
get a good feel for the way he wants to develop things.

No, I am not completely new here, but have mostly lurked here on and off for a few
years. But I did not realize that I had replied to Mr Shuttle C is the answer to
everything until I saw your posting. Oops. I should have realized I was wasting my time
because of the bit about placing solar arrays on the moon and beaming the power to Earth
via microwaves. Long way to be beaming power with very large tracking antennas required at
one end or the other; simply not going to be practicable within our lifetimes.

Alan Figgatt

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:16:32 +0000 (UTC), Steven James Forsberg
wrote:

snip
a sometimes needed (sometimes not) adjunct. Of course, no plans are really
far enough along to criticize, but I don't think I'll be happy with just
sending someone there to "plant a flag" until we've exhausted our other
options.

Planting a flag on virgin soil can be a very important thing for some
people. What if the person with the flag was a privateer that had
managed to get to that spot by there own efforts and money with no
government help? Today a British woman has managed to get to the
south pole all on her own with no government help, and no resupply.
The pole has been reached many times in the past, but it was the
accomplisment of actually doing it what matters, and in the case of
Mars, if that person wishes to plant the flag of their country and
leave footprints in the dust that will be the lasting image of his/her
efforts to show it can be done, and a citizen of that country got
there *first*.

http://vulcain.fb12.tu-berlin.de/ILR...hh_koelle.html

Koelle's Moonbase 2015 - Model of a Near-Term Lunar Base

Nearly 1,000 metric tons of facilities and equipment are installed on the
Moon. Average crew duty cycles are nine months. A lunar space transportation
system comprised of a heavy lift launch vehicle, a lunar ferry vehicle and a
space operations center in lunar orbit is an essential companion project.
The systems behaviour, the dynamics of selected parameters and the overall
performance and cost-effectiveness of the lunar base, including its logistic
system, are analysed on a year-to-year basis. It is shown that the average
annual cost of a lunar labor-year is expected to be approximately 37 million
(1999) dollars and that the average annual operations cost of this lunar
base including a 10 year development phase may be less than 2 billion $.-
Moonbase 2015 is documented as LUBSIM Option 10 and TRASIM Option 14 in the
authors electronic files.

-kert

Kaido Kert wrote:

It is shown that the average
annual cost of a lunar labor-year is expected to be approximately 37 million
(1999) dollars

People talking about manufacturing things on the moon instead of on Earth
should consider what this number means. It is several hundred times the
cost of employing a person in the US.

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Kaido Kert wrote:

It is shown that the average
annual cost of a lunar labor-year is expected to be approximately 37
million
(1999) dollars

People talking about manufacturing things on the moon instead of on Earth
should consider what this number means. It is several hundred times the
cost of employing a person in the US.

Very obviously, you havent even clicked on the link, not to mention reading
any of the contents. How can we have a discussion ?

-kert

Kaido Kert wrote:
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...

Kaido Kert wrote:


It is shown that the average
annual cost of a lunar labor-year is expected to be approximately 37

million

(1999) dollars

People talking about manufacturing things on the moon instead of on Earth
should consider what this number means. It is several hundred times the
cost of employing a person in the US.


Very obviously, you havent even clicked on the link, not to mention reading
any of the contents. How can we have a discussion ?


How was what I was saying incorrect?

Paul