NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

"AA Institute" wrote in message
oups.com...
-NASA today unveiled an ambitious blueprint for returning American
-astronauts to the moon by 2018 using new rockets based on shuttle
-propulsion technology and a new reusable crew vehicle Administrator
-Mike Griffin described as "Apollo on steroids.."

-Full story:

- http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/19exploration/

It sounds like the lander docks with CEV, they fly to the moon together, and
then separate. Isn't this docking an extra step that slows things down?
Why not have them fly to the moon separately?

What is the cargo rocket? Is that used for ISS or the moon? If it is for
the moon, why would it be smaller than the manned rocket?

Ever hear of exploration geologists? Mining companies set up camp in
the middle of somewhere - like Timbuktu - and the geologists move in to
map the local geology. To this end they may do field work, seismic
shots, gravity readings, drilling etc. to provide the data they need to
map the subsurface geology. At various points, all the observations,
data and samples are shipped out to an office/lab and a comprehensive
report is written up as pertains the site and its potential for a given
resource. This is just like real planetary geology! Please note,
robots are not doing this job and are most unlikely to be doing so in
any reasonably near future!

This is my last post on the geological side as we are drifting way off
topic now, but believe me there is still much in-situ geology to be
performed on the moon and this job is best handled by on the spot
geologists. Geology is much more than collecting various spectra of em
radiation or sub-atomic particles, as astronomers do, although that can
play a part, it is also about looking at rocks in the field, the form
of the and scape and the layering in deposits. Nothing beats picking
up a rock, whipping out the geological hammer and giving it a whack to
get a nice clean surface to examine and the resultant ideas that spring
forth from that examination - "Oh, a basalt that means volcanic
outflow, are there any volcanic cones in the area?"

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 19 Sep 2005 14:47:27 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Alex
Terrell" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

NASA today unveiled an ambitious blueprint

Well, I guess opinions on that may vary.

I thought I was seeing the history channel - except there was no
Kennedy to say by the end of decade - rather, we'll put some men on the
moon, when we get round to it.

With no plans for a moonbase, I'm struggling to see the point of all
this. And the architecture is about 50% more expensive than it ought to
be.

OK, is anyone other than NASA fanboys here actually excited about this
plan?
I am extremely excited about this plan! I have a question for you.
What else should NASA do? Personally, I rather get rid of NASA instead of
letting it orbit humans around the earth forever wasting our tax money. If
we are going to have manned spaceflight we need to be serious about it and
explore space, moon, mars and beyond, with people not just some dam robots.
Somebody mentioned something on these newsgroups once about NASA working
with energy. That's bull****. We have a dept or energy for that. NASA
exists to do flight in space mostly.
Ray

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:


More focused, certainly, but with the increasing budget, and the
predilection to do more in house and less contracting, how is it
smaller?


Increasing budget? Didn't Griffin say this program was designed to fit
into a flat+inflation budget? Where is the increase?


For exactly the same (or more) cost as the Shuttle program.


We get something that will initially be (at least) safer than Shuttle and
ultimately be more versatile than the orbiter.

More importantly, it's a plan that finally puts an end-cap (of sorts) on
the shuttle era.


--
I was punching a text message into my | Reed Snellenberger
phone yesterday and thought, "they need | GPG KeyID: 5A978843
to make a phone that you can just talk | rsnellenberger
into." Major Thomb | -at-houston.rr.com

Yes, there is a lot to like about this plan.

1) We're finally getting around to developing a Saturn V-class heavy lifter.
This is essential if we're ever to go beyond low earth orbit. And it looks
like they're going with the in-line design, which will have greater growth
potential than Shuttle-Z.
2) I think it is correct to focus on the moon for now. There are several
reasons why the moon could be a better colonization target than Mars - close
to earth in travel time and communications, easier gravity well to escape,
greater solar energy resources, no issues with biological contamination.
If water is present at the poles, then we can practice resource processing
as well.
3) There's no technological risk in the hardware development. Some may
view that as a negative, but we've wasted too much money on X-craft, space
stations, and (yes) the shuttle with very little to show for it. I think
until we get a space elevator, getting to LEO will be an expensive
proposition. Until then, keep it simple. Remember, the most dependable
launcher on earth is the first one - Soyuz.
4) Disappointed that it's too much like Apollo/Saturn? What an idiotic
troll-like complaint - Apollo/Saturn was the pinnacle achievement of the
space age. If we hadn't discarded it 30 years ago, then astronaut Husband
would be walking Husband Hill by now.
5) No mention of international cooperation. Don't get me wrong - I'm a
good old-fashioned globalist. But I'll die of old age before they negotiate
who builds what - and it won't be any cheaper anyway (e.g. ISS).

Two weaknesses in my opinion:
1) The Stick-CEV seems wrong-sized for LEO operations - too large. The
decision is understandable because we're keeping the SRBs for the heavy
lifter. But it would be nice to see private industry step up for operations
less than 250 miles high.
2) The overall price seems high. If the Stick/CEV development is about $10
billion (in itself a high number) and the Heavy is about $8 billion -
where's the rest of the money being spent? NASA needs to trim the
workforce, close some buildings, etc. Cancel ISS, or sell it to Bigelow.
:^)

OK, is anyone other than NASA fanboys here actually excited about this
plan?

"John Doe" wrote in message ...
Rand Simberg wrote:
More focused, certainly, but with the increasing budget, and the
predilection to do more in house and less contracting, how is it
smaller?


More focused is the keyword here. NASA will be an organisation whose
sole capability will be to go to the moon, pick up a few rocks and come
back to the earth. No real advancement in space exploration, and a net
decrease in versatility of manned space programme.

Ridiculious comment above. We are going back to the moon to learn to
live their! Not just to pick up a couple of rocks! Just like we have
learned to live in a space station in orbit for 6 months, we will learn to
live on the moon, another planet, and then we will transfer that knowledge
to living on Mars. We will learn to live off the land, and we will become
better humans. What is so wrong with this. We humans are explorers. This
is normal for us. This is well worth the cost.

Ray


In this announcement, has NASA announced automated docking development ?
Without a shuttle or automated docking, NASA will not be able to build
any structures in space anymore. And to build anything meaningful, they
will want docking ports as big as CBMs. So either automated bertthing
with existing CBMs or develop a docakble CBM size port.

"Michael Rhino" wrote:

It sounds like the lander docks with CEV, they fly to the moon together, and
then separate. Isn't this docking an extra step that slows things down?
Why not have them fly to the moon separately?

They'd each need a "departure stage" if it were done that way. They
need to dock in order for people/rocks to move between them anyway. And
there's always the Apollo 13 lesson -- having a lifeboat is a good idea.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 19 Sep 2005 15:08:09 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

OK, is anyone other than NASA fanboys here actually excited about this
plan?

I think it provides a good roadmap for NASA to follow for
the next how-ever-many years. It is a great improvement
to the space shuttle era NASA framework.

This is a plan that could very well, over time, lead to a
smaller, more focused NASA.

More focused, certainly, but with the increasing budget, and the
predilection to do more in house and less contracting, how is it
smaller?


As I understand it, the budget increases very little in real terms.
Most of the increase is inflation.


It is a plan that produces
something useful in the near-term - the CEV and CLV tools
that will replace shuttle and could by themselves, in
concert with commercial launch services and international
space station partners, serve as the framework for a long-
term human space program.

For exactly the same (or more) cost as the Shuttle program.

http://www.transterrestrial.com/arch...29.html#005729

If you don't know if the figures you are quoting are full program costs
or fixed costs, how do you know that the CEV/CLV will cost exactly the
same or more?

And what was your source for the quote?

Will McLean

"Michael Rhino" wrote in
:

"AA Institute" wrote in message
oups.com...
-NASA today unveiled an ambitious blueprint for returning American
-astronauts to the moon by 2018 using new rockets based on shuttle
-propulsion technology and a new reusable crew vehicle Administrator
-Mike Griffin described as "Apollo on steroids.."

-Full story:

- http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/19exploration/

It sounds like the lander docks with CEV,

Other way around. CEV docks with the lander, which is launched into LEO
with the Earth departure stage.

they fly to the moon
together, and then separate. Isn't this docking an extra step that
slows things down?

You've got to dock *somewhere* since the CEV can't land on the moon. Might
as well do it in LEO, where the abort options are much more benign if
something goes wrong.

Why not have them fly to the moon separately?

Then both the CEV and the lander would need separate Earth departure
stages. Plus, as Alan pointed out, you get the lifeboat benefits.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On 19 Sep 2005 16:40:45 -0700, in a place far, far away, "dasun"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Science and lots of it, skip the political baloney and stick to the
subject!

Science will never justify the vast amounts of money being spent on
human spaceflight, for good reason.