A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Bush's plan, future of ISS and lunar transit



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 15th 04, 10:05 AM
Peter Altschuler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush's plan, future of ISS and lunar transit

First, let me say this plan is serious. I know some on this message group
questioned the intent of this plan. Apparently Bush and O'Keefe have been
talking to each other first weekly and then daily about this, even before
Bush appointed O'Keefe as administrator. For those who don't believe me and
for the inside story of what lead to this, go to...

http://interestalert.com/brand/sitei...=High%20Te ch

Though I believe they are serious about this, I have so many questions that
are still unanswered. For example, my latest question stems from a detail I
learned from the above article that states that X-37 program would be
cancelled. So, the plan calls for the OSP program (which needs the X-37
program to demonstrate important technologies) to morph into the Crew
Exploration Vehicle (CEV). How could this happen without the X-37?

Any way, do they say they will finish the space station. Does any one have
any idea what this mean? Will they finish it as Core Complete, with a
4-person capability? Or will they finish it with an expanded capability?

Do they even need a space station for a permanent return to the moon? How
does a space station make lunar travel cost effective? I understand the need
to launch more fuel to orbit to get to the moon. The more fuel you launch,
the cost of the launch increases, and the more fuel you launch, the heavier
your launch vehicle becomes, thus the more expensive that launch becomes.
Add to this the cost for the return trip.

Besides fuel adding to the weight of the lunar craft, is there any
additional hardware adding to the weight requirements. Can the CEV come off
the shelf with LEM capabilities that unfold upon landing on the moon? Or do
we need to send a LEM-like craft to orbit first? The LEM-like craft would
travel between LEO and the moon, having a new propellant module attached to
it from LEO before making its return trip to the moon.

Assuming that fuel is purely the issue with weight, and that LEM-like
capabilities could be built into the CEV (or that we have a LEM-like vehicle
permanently in LEO-lunar transit), and assuming the only cargo we send to
the moon are astronauts, then the only additional costs to get the CEV to
the moon and back is the cost of the fuel requirements, right? If we already
has that fuel in LEO, then a CEV would simply be required to dock with a
fuel module already in orbit and it could travel to the moon, right?

Or would the CEV need extra engines and other equipment to add to its weight
requirements to get it to the moon? If so, is this added weight requirement
a drop in the bucket compared to the weight requirement of the fuel? If this
added weight requirement is significant enough, then having a LEM-like
vehicle in permanent LEO-lunar orbit, in addition to the CEV would be
required here.

Now, would this hypothetical fuel module and (if required) LEM-like vehicle
be able to sustain itself unmanned in LEO, or would it be required (or more
efficient and cost effective) to be parked at a space station. If so, could
the ISS host it? Someone here said ISS's has two windows per orbit for lunar
transit. Is this practical and economic?

Now, back to my hypothetical fuel tank in orbit. It would be a good idea, if
it could magically appear in LEO, right. But, this isn't being realistic,
but it would solve all the above problems, if it were realistic, right? So,
the problem is to get all that heavy fuel into orbit cheaply, separately of
the CEV. So, what we need to do is figure out the cheapest possible way of
getting all that fuel into LEO separately from the CEV, right?

Forget about size and weight for a moment. On a dollar-pound to LEO ratio,
what is the cheapest launcher do we (meaning the World) have today? Sea
Launch? Could we get extremely small payloads into LEO with future
technologies, such as electro-magnetic cannon guns? In any case, we could
shoot small canisters of fuel to LEO that would dock with the
above-hypothesized fuel module. We would then launch as many of these as it
takes fill the that module. Once filled, the CEV would launch and dock with
it and go to the moon. Practical?

Exactly how much fuel (in weight) would be required to get the CEV to the
moon and back? How much would it cost to send all that fuel in canisters
using the lowest cost to orbit launch system? Have we saved any money to
make trans-lunar transit more affordable?


  #2  
Old January 15th 04, 12:20 PM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush's plan, future of ISS and lunar transit

Peter Altschuler wrote:
First, let me say this plan is serious. I know some on this message group
questioned the intent of this plan. Apparently Bush and O'Keefe have been
talking to each other first weekly and then daily about this,


If O'Keefe had already made up his mind before joining NASA, then the plan has
far less credibility. A plan by Arthur C Clarke might have more credibility.

Now, since O'keefe has joined NASA, if he had serious input from his troups, I
think that the Bush announcement would have been presented differently with
more credibiilty and more condcrete steps and better explanation of each deliverable.

learned from the above article that states that X-37 program would be
cancelled. So, the plan calls for the OSP program (which needs the X-37
program to demonstrate important technologies) to morph into the Crew
Exploration Vehicle (CEV). How could this happen without the X-37?


Wasn't X37 cancelled a long while ago when they hit a snag with composite fuel
tanks and when they asked for more money to fix the problem, they were told to
can the whole deal ?

NASA need to be told or decide once and for all what sort of vehicle they need
and then stick to that decision and bring it to fruition. Do they want a
replacement for the shuttle (capable of bringing back cargo with smooth
landing) or will they go with expandable rockets with automated tugs to bring
cargo to space along with an expandable rocket and a glorified
Apollo/Soyuz/CRV crew taxi that lands with parachutes and a big bang when it
reached ground ?

Any way, do they say they will finish the space station. Does any one have
any idea what this mean? Will they finish it as Core Complete, with a
4-person capability? Or will they finish it with an expanded capability?


It all depends in my opinion on how serious they are for the mars mission. If
they are serious, I would hope/expect that the station would actually grow
more than originally planned in order to test the technologies, procedures ,
systems before building the big ship. (for instance, if they decide to
evaluate TransHab).

Do they even need a space station for a permanent return to the moon? How
does a space station make lunar travel cost effective?


Ask yourself why bother with the moon. The station provide a far better
environment to test the systems and structures for the ship to mars.

On the other hand, the Moon may offer experience for the gear that will land
in mars. but they could simulate that in australia or even northern canada.

In his speech, Bush alluded to using the moon to produce and assemble the
ship. Such a stupid statement. When you consider that you want the highest
grade aluminium , titanium etc, do you really think that they could refine the
ore to such high standard in a small pressurized tin can on the moon ?

On the other hand, if they do take water to produce H2 and O2 as well as water
for ECLSS, then they may be some savings in launching it from the moon.


additional hardware adding to the weight requirements. Can the CEV come off
the shelf with LEM capabilities that unfold upon landing on the moon? Or do
we need to send a LEM-like craft to orbit first?


Depends on the definition of the mission. If all you want is to send two men
to walk for a few hours on the moon, then the LEM is the best idea. But if
you want 10 humans to live for 3 months on the moon, then you need something
totally different. 2 guys can be "intimate" for a couple of days in a
telephone booth. But if it lasts over a month, it needs a lot more space,
weight, supplies and systems.

I have absolutely no idea what a CEV's role would be, except for the ability
to bring people to and from the ISS, and possibly be part of a ship going to
the moon. Will the CEV be reusable ? Will it land by flying, or falling with
parachutes ? or will be land using rockets to slow it down ?

This is all speculation right now. Hopefully NASA will make a bery objective
and unbiased assesment of the needs and find the best possible solution.

For all we know, they may conclude that a replacement for the shuttle would be
another vehicle veru sikmilar to the shuttle (except with update designs and
components), and this would be complemented single use vehicles such as a LEM.

If they do it right, maybe the new shuttle could go to the moon where it would
drop off the LEM, and then bring it back in its cargo hold). That might mean
having a modular engine/fuel portion or the ability to stack the new shuttle
on top of a heavy launcher or on top of a smaller launcher (depending on if
you're going to moon or just station).

And more importantly, someone will have to make a decision at some point in
time to stop developping and build whatever they can with whatever technology
is available at that time.
  #3  
Old January 15th 04, 11:58 PM
Chris Bennetts
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush's plan, future of ISS and lunar transit


"John Doe" wrote in message
...
snip
Now, since O'keefe has joined NASA, if he had serious input from his

troups, I
think that the Bush announcement would have been presented differently

with
more credibiilty and more condcrete steps and better explanation of each

deliverable.

Bush's statement gives NASA the mandate to think about a moon trip
seriously. Actual plans will come later. Bush said that he wants to return
to the moon, he didn't specify how it would be done, a good move IMO.

learned from the above article that states that X-37 program would be
cancelled. So, the plan calls for the OSP program (which needs the X-37
program to demonstrate important technologies) to morph into the Crew
Exploration Vehicle (CEV). How could this happen without the X-37?


Wasn't X37 cancelled a long while ago when they hit a snag with composite

fuel
tanks and when they asked for more money to fix the problem, they were

told to
can the whole deal ?


That was X-33. X-37 is still going, I believe.

NASA need to be told or decide once and for all what sort of vehicle they

need
and then stick to that decision and bring it to fruition. Do they want a
replacement for the shuttle (capable of bringing back cargo with smooth
landing) or will they go with expandable rockets with automated tugs to

bring
cargo to space along with an expandable rocket and a glorified
Apollo/Soyuz/CRV crew taxi that lands with parachutes and a big bang when

it
reached ground ?


I couldn't agree more. NASA got to that stage with OSP, but now the goal
posts have moved. The sooner the goal posts are found, the better.

Any way, do they say they will finish the space station. Does any one

have
any idea what this mean? Will they finish it as Core Complete, with a
4-person capability? Or will they finish it with an expanded capability?


It all depends in my opinion on how serious they are for the mars mission.

If
they are serious, I would hope/expect that the station would actually grow
more than originally planned in order to test the technologies, procedures

,
systems before building the big ship. (for instance, if they decide to
evaluate TransHab).


Don't count on it. The ISS could play a role in evaluating some hardware for
a Mars mission, but I think any expansion beyond what is already planned is
unlikely. In particular, I don't think we'll see TransHab.

Do they even need a space station for a permanent return to the moon?

How
does a space station make lunar travel cost effective?


Ask yourself why bother with the moon. The station provide a far better
environment to test the systems and structures for the ship to mars.


Right. But how much hardware will even need to be tested in space? Most of
the systems will be sufficiently testable on the ground.

On the other hand, the Moon may offer experience for the gear that will

land
in mars. but they could simulate that in australia or even northern

canada.

Absolutely. The extra value of testing Mars hardware on the moon won't be
enough to justify the additional expense over testing the hardware on Earth.

In his speech, Bush alluded to using the moon to produce and assemble the
ship. Such a stupid statement. When you consider that you want the highest
grade aluminium , titanium etc, do you really think that they could refine

the
ore to such high standard in a small pressurized tin can on the moon ?


They could, but the cost would be impossibly huge.

On the other hand, if they do take water to produce H2 and O2 as well as

water
for ECLSS, then they may be some savings in launching it from the moon.


Not enough to justify setting things up on the moon in the first place.

snip
For all we know, they may conclude that a replacement for the shuttle

would be
another vehicle veru sikmilar to the shuttle (except with update designs

and
components), and this would be complemented single use vehicles such as a

LEM.

wishful thinking
Bring on the OV-200s!!!
/wishful thinking

(As discussed before in this group, building an updated OV-200 series of
space shuttles, using new-build airframes of the same design as the OV-100s
in use now, but with heavily updated systems, has quite a bit of merit.)

If they do it right, maybe the new shuttle could go to the moon where it

would
drop off the LEM, and then bring it back in its cargo hold). That might

mean
having a modular engine/fuel portion or the ability to stack the new

shuttle
on top of a heavy launcher or on top of a smaller launcher (depending on

if
you're going to moon or just station).


The space shuttle is always going to be an LEO ship. On-orbit assembly of a
Lunar Transfer Vehicle and Lunar Landing Vehicle would make most sense.

General comments on Bush's proposal: I'm not sure I heard much about *why*
he wanted to go back. Unless there is a real reason to go there, then the
program will (quite rightly) not get through Congress. Yes, I do think that
we should go back to the moon at some point, but now's probably not the
time.

--Chris


  #4  
Old January 16th 04, 02:02 AM
Jim Kingdon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bush's plan, future of ISS and lunar transit

I couldn't agree more. NASA got to that stage with OSP, but now the goal
posts have moved. The sooner the goal posts are found, the better.


Yeah. It seems like OSP gets "canceled" every few years (since X-33
days, anyway), but it turns out to be a rescope rather than a
cancellation as such.

General comments on Bush's proposal: I'm not sure I heard much about *why*
he wanted to go back.


I'm not sure I agree. Look at the sppech and the companion Fact Sheet
at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040114-1.html .
The usual reasons are there (spinoffs, get young people interested in
science/technology, etc). Are these reasons to go to the moon rather
than something else NASA might do? Probably so, at least with respect
to reasons which require the public to notice the activity.

There's a new document on the white house web site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/space/renewed_spirit.html

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.