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

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



: [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.



I can't blame you, based on past experience with NASA and
the way they do things. They can turn a simple project into
a monstrosity, the International space station being one
example. For what they will end up spending on ISS, we
could have had a space station, a Moonbase, and the
beginnings of a Marsbase.



: 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,
----------------------------------------------------------




You certainly have a point, but I think our destiny and
our salvation is in space, in the greater universe, where
unlimited resources await us, and where we won't have all
our Earth eggs in one basket, and I think we should get
started as soon as possible.

We are now picking up where we left off in 1972. Let's
not wait another 30 years to get busy. It *can* be done at
a "reasonable" cost, even by NASA standards, if we do it
properly.

And I do think robotic missions are vital. We need both
robotic and human missions in our move into space.


TA

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 11:39:52 GMT,
(Christopher) wrote:

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*.





I say, more power to anyone who is able to accomplish such
a thing.


TA

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:38:25 -0500, 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 are very perceptive.


The shuttle launch system was designed to launch shuttles to LEO, period.


So? It's design will allow other things to be launched,
too, and not just to low-Earth orbit.


The 3 SMEs
are on the shuttle - you would mount them on some new return vehicle?


That's one option. Another is to parachute the "boattail"
that would contain the Shuttle main engines back to Earth
for recovery and reuse. Another option is to use old
shuttle engines and just take them into orbit with the
payload.



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.



Why do that when it would cost more money to redo the
Saturn V, than to convert the space shuttle launch system
into a heavy-lift cargo launcher?




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



The more tonnage one can put in space at one time, the
cheaper the program is going to be. I don't think the Delta
IV can come close to competing with the shuttle-derived
heavy-lift vehicle on costs and it certainly cannot compete
on simplicity of operation.



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.



Yes, I was thinking about a battery bank in this instance.
The battery bank is not such a tough option if we are using
heavy-lift launchers. I would have to do some homework for
exact figures, but if memory serves, it would require about
a 40-ton hydrogen/oxygen fuelcell which a shuttle-derived
heavy-lift launch vehicle could put on the Moon with two or
three heavy-lift launches, depending on the exact
configuration.



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 agree, but I think NASA is currently working on just
such a device, and I haven't heard much from the anti-nuke
people about it. They are strangely silent.



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.



Using a shuttle-derived heavy-lift launch vehicle, we
could put a 30-ton Moonbase on the Moon, complete with
energy and supplies to last 12 people for 90 days, using
just one launch. There's no reason why the first crew on
the moon cannot stay at least that long, barring something
unforseen.

And there just happens to be a design for such a Moonbase
using a converted oxygen tank from the External Tank.
Or a similar structure could be developed using an Aft Cargo
Carrier (ACC) that would mount below the External Tank on
launch. This could be put in low-Earth orbit with a normal
space shuttle launch and would not require a heavy-lift
vehicle. But the 80 tons or so of propellants and oxidants
*would* require a heavy-lift launch vehicle in order to be
cost-effective and to keep the project as simple as
possible.


Alan Figgatt





TA

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:52:11 -0700, Charles Buckley
wrote:

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?



Cut him a little slack, Charles. It has been quite a
while since I posted on sci.space.policy.


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.



If you are a glutton for punishment! It might take you a
couple of years to read it all.


TA

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 18:15:46 -0500, Alan Figgatt
wrote:

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







Well, if you want to get a feel for the concept of using
the Moon to supply electric power to the Earth, you can do
that ole Google search, rather than dismissing it out of
hand. There has been plenty written about the concept on
this newsgroup in the past, and not just by me.


TA