Return to moon: EELV or HLV? Let the market decide (or at least the buyers).

"Dholmes" wrote in message ...

Why not? When the Dutch settled New Amsterdam, they never worried
that
it might require multiple years of launching stuff before the city
was
"done." After all these years, stuff is still arriving in New York
City every single day. The city still isn't "done."

The first outpost was probably set up within a year.
Later on it developed into a settlement.

So, I repeat -- why do you think a lunar settlement should be "done"
after one lump of cargo is delivered?

Saying everything should be sent on one large ship so you can be
"done" means you don't want to do anything very ambitious.

I have seen no one suggest one ship.
What most people including myself seem to be trying to do is find the right
size.
You do not use a kayak when a clipper is called for.

Most people know that a vehicle carrying tons of cargo is not a kayak.

The tendency of heavy-lift advocates to constantly denigrate
reasonably sized vehicles as kayaks, biplanes, bicycles, etc. is most
annoying.

Do you think clipper ships were built so large that the entire nation
needed only one, sailing just a couple weeks per year?

We are talking about putting 4 men on the Moon for extended
periods.

You're talking about trivia, then.

No just what the president has suggested we do before 2020.

Which doesn't make it any less trivial. Besides, I don't recall the
President saying it had to be limited to four men (or limited to men
at all).

"Edward Wright" wrote in message
om...
"Dholmes" wrote in message
...

I have seen no one suggest one ship.
What most people including myself seem to be trying to do is find the
right
size.
You do not use a kayak when a clipper is called for.

Most people know that a vehicle carrying tons of cargo is not a kayak.

The tendency of heavy-lift advocates to constantly denigrate
reasonably sized vehicles as kayaks, biplanes, bicycles, etc. is most
annoying.

So, how many tons of supplies did bicycles transport down the Ho Chi
Minh trail? Use what works. I'm sure the party involved would
have loved to dock a freighter in the south and offload directly.

Do you think clipper ships were built so large that the entire nation
needed only one, sailing just a couple weeks per year?

In article ,
"johnhare" wrote:

"Edward Wright" wrote in message
om...
"Dholmes" wrote in message
...

I have seen no one suggest one ship.
What most people including myself seem to be trying to do is find the
right
size.
You do not use a kayak when a clipper is called for.

Most people know that a vehicle carrying tons of cargo is not a kayak.

The tendency of heavy-lift advocates to constantly denigrate
reasonably sized vehicles as kayaks, biplanes, bicycles, etc. is most
annoying.

So, how many tons of supplies did bicycles transport down the Ho Chi
Minh trail? Use what works. I'm sure the party involved would
have loved to dock a freighter in the south and offload directly.

Actually, until there were enough US Navy destroyers in place to patrol
the coastal routes in early 1966, small one lung diesel freighters
(about 1-500 tons), moving down the coast from Tonkin, and even from
Hainan, were the major source of supply for the communist forces. The
HCM Trail was in place for marching agents South before 1964, and
regular bodies of troops after August of 1964, and because the
vulnerability of the seaborne route for logistical support was known
ahead of time. From 1966 onwards the Trail blossomed as a logistical
route as well. Even after 1966, large freighters still docked in port in
Cambodia and lots of supplies from them were slipped onboard sampans
across the border into the Mekong Delta through the many channels of the
delta's cannals and creeks.

Still, the fact that payloads *can* be broken up and delivered
separately, and resassembled in orbit is not in dispute. The dispute is
how hard this is, and how easy it can be made. The curious point, to me,
is the real lack of engineering effort put into the technologies that
would make this easier. This would include things like "work pods" for
shirtsleeve work outside a main spacecraft, and teleoperated robotic
devices. Some was done on the latter, but the former went begging, as
far as I know.

This is not *easy* engineering, but is not impossible. The lack of
effort put into it by Marshall over the last 20 years seems to indicate
a desire to not undercut any possible large launch vehicle development
programs there. I know Johnson Space Center has done some work in
teleoperated systems that coud have been further developed for assembly
work, but the funding never came forward.

Regards,

Tom Billings

--
Oregon L-5 Society

http://www.oregonl5.org/

Another possibility for returning to the moon via Medium lift
may be to develop a *single man* one-way craft. Place the hardware
for the return flight on the surface of the moon (and perhaps
also lunar orbit), and then try to get the simplest of manned
capsules from here to there. [trying to think outside the box]

I remember one proposal from the mid-1990's (ISELA) which would land
a 600kg on the surface of the moon. It would seem to me that
maybe if one were real stingy, that payload could be a man with
minimal life-support.

http://www.orbit6.com/crisf/ise1.txt

If we're serious about the long-term, maybe the real question
should be that of what infrastructure we should put in place to
make these ventures sustainable. Would a cycler between the
Earth and the Moon help? How about a reusable craft for getting
to and from the lunar surface/lunar orbit? The one-shot Saturn-V
architecture is what we're trying to avoid. (Although I'd love
to have the Saturn-V back for other reasons).

- Cris Fitch
San Diego, CA
http://www.orbit6.com/

"Dholmes" wrote in message .. .

That would go against the stated purpose of why we have NASA in the first
place.

Is the stated purpose of NASA to support Boeing and LM? I thought it
was something more like "to explore space .... to ensure a US lead in
space...etc". The current policy is a licence to rip off the US tax
payer.

I have always considered myself a free trader but some things especially
government based are best done within a country.
It would be like putting up national defense to the lowest overseas bidder.

No - it would be like putting an order for guns out to tender and
buying the best. If the AK 47 happens to be the best, the US armey
should buy it. Otherwise they'd be at a disadvantage.

Few countries have a big enough defence procurement budget that they
can develop and buy everything in-country. No country has a big enough
space launch market. America saying it must only buy Amercian rockets
is like Canada saying it'll only buy jet fighters built and developed
in Canada.

I can see the conversation now:
US President "What do you mean you will not give us our paid for troops to
defend Taiwan from the Chinese Invasion?"
Chinese Premiere "Sorry but they are too busy invading Taiwan and by the way
thanks for all the great weapons and training."


If you hand over NASA's launches to a foreign agency we would soon be a
guest in our own program.

Foreign agencies. Handing a launch of 12 contracts to Arianne would be
just what's needed to get Boeing and LM moving.

Do not worry though because there are plenty of progams that help Americans
that congress will soon take NASA's budget for.

Sadly for american tax payers the US govet doesn't think like great
american companies.

"Dholmes" wrote in message ...

I think it is more then that.
24 launchs of three rockets each is 72.

Beyond this is where heavy lift starts to become better.
Under this smaller wins.

A "hald descent" moon program (Phase 1) would land one pallet (6.7 to
10 tons) every six months. Each would need 3 Delta IV Large - so 6 per
year.

In addition, a small crew would need to be rotated every six months.
these missions would need 3-4 Delta IV - Large, depending on the mass
of the CEV.

So in total, 12-14 per year.

In Phase 2, you could refule the landers on the lunar surface, so
doubling the pallet size with the same launch scenario.

On 18 Mar 2004 12:43:29 -0800, (Edward
Wright) wrote:

Mary Shafer wrote in message . ..

2. Sell (for about $4.99 - and NASA would have to fund the
redundancies) the space shuttle hardware and intellectual property
to
some one other than LM and Boeing.

The agency isn't allowed to sell its assets; they belong to the
taxpayer and can't be just be given to some company. As a taxpayer, I
think this is a good policy.

What makes you say that, Mary? Surplus government assets are sold all
the time, usually at auction.

Well, certainly. But first they have to be declared surplus.

Dryden surplused the C-47 after we got the KingAir, not before, for
example.

Of course, I can't imagine who besides Lockheed or Boeing would want
to buy and operate the Space Shuttle. (A museum or collector might
bid, but not to operate it.)

It's pretty hard to surplus operable equipment in use. It wouldn't be
in use if it were surplus, would it?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Mary Shafer wrote in message . ..
On 18 Mar 2004 12:43:29 -0800, (Edward
Wright) wrote:

Mary Shafer wrote in message . ..

2. Sell (for about $4.99 - and NASA would have to fund the
redundancies) the space shuttle hardware and intellectual property
to
some one other than LM and Boeing.

The agency isn't allowed to sell its assets; they belong to the
taxpayer and can't be just be given to some company. As a taxpayer, I
think this is a good policy.

What makes you say that, Mary? Surplus government assets are sold all
the time, usually at auction.

Well, certainly. But first they have to be declared surplus.

Dryden surplused the C-47 after we got the KingAir, not before, for
example.

And once we get CEV or whatever being launched on an EELV, then the
Shuttle can be surplused.

Of course, I can't imagine who besides Lockheed or Boeing would want
to buy and operate the Space Shuttle. (A museum or collector might
bid, but not to operate it.)

It's pretty hard to surplus operable equipment in use. It wouldn't be
in use if it were surplus, would it?

That's not how surplus is defined. Otherwise, the Shuttle would be
surplus now, since it's not operable. Items are defined surplus when
the government has no use for them.

I assume another way to sell assets is to outsource operations. That
certainly happens here with a lot of Government IT. Operating
equipment is then sold to the company taking over the operation (even
though it is still being used). The company then has to improve the
service, and at some point upgrade or replace the equipment.

This would be a sensible approach for the shuttle, except in current
form as a manned launcher there'd be no takers. But as Shuttle C with
a market .....

Mary Shafer wrote in message . ..
On 18 Mar 2004 12:43:29 -0800, (Edward
Wright) wrote:

Mary Shafer wrote in message . ..

2. Sell (for about $4.99 - and NASA would have to fund the
redundancies) the space shuttle hardware and intellectual property
to
some one other than LM and Boeing.

The agency isn't allowed to sell its assets; they belong to the
taxpayer and can't be just be given to some company. As a taxpayer, I
think this is a good policy.

What makes you say that, Mary? Surplus government assets are sold all
the time, usually at auction.

Well, certainly. But first they have to be declared surplus.

Dryden surplused the C-47 after we got the KingAir, not before, for
example.

And once we get CEV or whatever being launched on an EELV, then the
Shuttle can be surplused.

Of course, I can't imagine who besides Lockheed or Boeing would want
to buy and operate the Space Shuttle. (A museum or collector might
bid, but not to operate it.)

It's pretty hard to surplus operable equipment in use. It wouldn't be
in use if it were surplus, would it?

That's not how surplus is defined. Otherwise, the Shuttle would be
surplus now, since it's not operable. Items are defined surplus when
the government has no use for them.

I assume another way to sell assets is to outsource operations. That
certainly happens here with a lot of Government IT. Operating
equipment is then sold to the company taking over the operation (even
though it is still being used). The company then has to improve the
service, and at some point upgrade or replace the equipment.

This would be a sensible approach for the shuttle, except in current
form as a manned launcher there'd be no takers. But as Shuttle C with
a market .....

(Alex Terrell) wrote in message . com...

This would be a sensible approach for the shuttle, except in current
form as a manned launcher there'd be no takers. But as Shuttle C with
a market .....

:-) At least you "unmanned space" guys are consistent. Anything
"unmanned" has to be cheap -- no matter how expensive it is.