NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

wrote in message
oups.com...
Why geology is so different from other sciences, say, astronomy? You
don't have to climb to the observation dome and spend a cold night
there anymore. You rely on the data collected automatically.

There is number factor as well. Compare a 1000 geologists investigating
phenomenon remotely, versus one of the spot. Given adequate quality of
remote observation, it is more likely that some of those 1000
geologists would find something interesting, that would escape the guy
on the spot.

dasun wrote:
Moore's law is great, but can it go on forever? How long before we
can build artificial intelligence as good as our own? What about the

Given the average intelligence of the average Usenet poster, I bet that
within 10 years we'll have Usenet bots indistingusheable of humans.

What about the
reasons for heading up, after all planetary disasters do happen and
colonising other worlds is the best long-term bet for our species.

Yes, but you have to approach it with rational thinking. How much a
trip to mars costs? It will be such for a long time, if we continue
rely on chemical propulsion engines. Wasting $100B on reincarnated moon
landing problem solves nothing.

The costs are worth it. I think some of these planetary scientists
who are against manned space exploration in favor of unmanned space
exploration because of cost are anti-human because they really don't care
whether humanity lives or dies being limited to one planet in the future.
They care more about the advancement of robots into space instead of the
advancement of humans into space. Maybe because humans are illogical
sometimes and robots are not, so they like robots better, maybe. I care
more for the advancement of humans into space. I think robots should go
before us to explore space but the main goal should be about humanity
learning to live in space and spreading out, not robots.

Ray

I like what you said below, but I actually like a big CEV in orbit. The
astronauts deserve a roomy CEV. By the way, do you know the dimensions of
the CEV or where I could find that information? Will the CEV be as big as
the shuttle crew cabin or smaller?

Ray

"S. Wand" wrote in message
...
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?

Some questions struck me.

The CLV uses a SSME on the upper stage, the HLV a pair of J-2s. Why the
two different engines?

This plan could be expending a dozen (or more) SSMEs a year. At that
production rate, how much less do you pay per engine?

How much would it add to development cost to put some or all of the HLV
engines in recoverable pods?

Will McLean

dasun wrote:
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.

No ****, dasun. The point, which whizzed completely over your
head, is that in some situations geologists are *not* sent
in, because it would be far too expensive to do so. Even
on Earth they use remote techniques when it's sufficiently
cheaper.

Paul

Ray wrote:

What else should NASA do?

It could cease to exist. Government agencies don't have a right to life.

Paul

I think I read that CEV would be 5.5m across the base of the heat shield,
compared to 3.9m for Apollo. I haven't seen any figures on internal volume
yet. I'd guess it'd be a bit smaller per person than the shuttle.

I think a large CEV is fine for the lunar missions - but for ISS rendevous a
Soyuz-class vehicle is sufficient. I'm sure it's too much money for NASA to
have another vehicle - but hopefully they'd consider private industry at
some point for the LEO market. Wishful thinking...

But overall, I really think it's a good plan. If they keep the budget under
control and try to live off the land, then maybe we can have a permanent
lunar presence.



"Ray" wrote in message
news:22LXe.7296$i86.3182@trndny01...

I like what you said below, but I actually like a big CEV in orbit.
The
astronauts deserve a roomy CEV. By the way, do you know the dimensions of
the CEV or where I could find that information? Will the CEV be as big as
the shuttle crew cabin or smaller?

Ray

"S. Wand" wrote in message
...
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?

In article ,
"S. Wand" wrote:

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

1) We're finally getting around to developing a Saturn V-class heavy lifter.

Again...

This is essential if we're ever to go beyond low earth orbit.

No, it's not. There are many mission architectures that would work just
fine with smaller launchers -- launchers of the sort, in fact, that are
already commercially available, and which will have even more
cost-reducing competition in the near future.

NASA should be out of the rocket development (and launch) business
altogether. Developing a new rocket is a big mistake, for a lot of
reasons.

2) I think it is correct to focus on the moon for now.

Agreed.

3) There's no technological risk in the hardware development.

Then what do you call it? Bureaucratic risk? However you label it,
there is substantial risk of schedule slippage, cost overruns, and
underperformance, if past history is any guide.

I think until we get a space elevator, getting to LEO will be an expensive
proposition.

Then you've already lost (or else you have a uselessly loose definition
of "expensive"). Rocket launch could be substantially cheaper than it
is now, but it needs a healthy capitalist market, not a massive
socialist space program -- one thing history has shown is clearly is
that socialism is enormously inefficient. (Ironic that Russia now has a
far more capitalist -- and cost-effective -- space program than we do.)

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.

And how many times will it continue to be a pinnacle achievement if we
keep redoing it?

Actually, I couldn't care less how much it's like Apollo/Saturn in terms
of the hardware or mission profile. The objection is that it's too much
like it in terms of its cost and sustainability (which are very high and
very low, respectively). Use the same approach, and you'll get the same
outcome -- maybe a half-dozen "missions" ending with no real development
or infrastructure of any kind. That's not progress. Pinnacle
achievements are great, but they don't get me a trip to the lunar Hilton.

If we hadn't discarded it 30 years ago, then astronaut Husband
would be walking Husband Hill by now.

But we did, because it was too costly and unsustainable. Why do you
imagine that it will be different this time?

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).

Agreed, the only thing worse than NASA controlling things is NASA
cooperating with a half-dozen other agencies to control things.

Two weaknesses in my opinion:
1) The Stick-CEV seems wrong-sized for LEO operations - too large.

Agreed. And much too governmental.

The decision is understandable because we're keeping the SRBs for the heavy
lifter.

That's no reason to make such an important decision! I'm groping for a
suitable analogy... it's like saying, we'll build this new car with a
propellor on the back, because we're going to need propellors for the
boat we also plan to build. (Much better would be to simply buy a car,
never mind that it lacks a propellor.)

But it would be nice to see private industry step up for operations
less than 250 miles high.

Now you've hit it. But private industry needs to be given the
opportunity -- nay, the market *demand* -- to step up. This plan does
the opposite.

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.

Right, which means no shuttle-derived heavy launch vehicle; develop
standard payload interfaces and buy launches for them on the open
market. Retrain all those out-of-work shuttle workers in something more
useful, like interior design.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

"Alan Anderson" wrote in message
...
"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.

Is there a problem with two departure stages? If they join together, they
are twice as heavy, so you need twice the fuel to get them there.

They
need to dock in order for people/rocks to move between them anyway.

The mission profile called for docking twice, once in low Earth orbit and
once in lunar orbit. I was concerned that docking in low Earth orbit would
slow the mission down.

After they leave the moon, they dock with something, but does that something
need any life support systems? They could stick with the life support
system they had on the moon and use that for the entire journey both
directions.

And
there's always the Apollo 13 lesson -- having a lifeboat is a good idea.

A lifeboat with no heat shield would have a serious problem. It depends on
which half dies.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 02:07:37 GMT, in a place far, far away, Reed
Snellenberger made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


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

It's in whatever you arbitrarily call "inflation."


Oh.

Hoping that you agree that it isn't accurate to compare unadjusted dollar
amounts that occur over a span of years (in the sense that "gas used to
cost $0.23/gal; now it costs five or more times that!" isn't a valid
comparison between a 1972 and a 2005 price), what benchmark, if any,
would *you* accept as "not increasing" in the flat+annual change in
value of $" sense?

That's the one I'm talking about...

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.

How can something that only carries six crew to orbit be more
versatile? Because it can deliver four people to lunar orbit, given a
sufficiently large and expensive upper stage? Big whoop.


Because it can carry more people to orbit than any other craft but the
moribund Shuttle. Because it can deliver four people to lunar orbit, for
another. Because it probably won't have to worry about launch delays
caused by mild breezes over a runway on the other side of the Atlantic.
Because it will likeways not have to worry nearly as much about winds
aloft causing sufficient aerodynamic stress to break off a wing.

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

What's the point, if there's no affordability improvement?


What's the point of an affordability improvement? There are more
important considerations in a non-commercial venture.


--
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

In article . com,
"dasun" wrote:

Hope all you like but the brutal reality is that space does not rate
much with most politicians and resonates little with the public -
unless they see amazing things. In the real world the budget
environment is very tight thus limiting what can be done, you want Moon
Bases, you want Mars now pony up the cash.

No, no, you're making wrong assumptions. I wasn't hoping for NASA to
establish moon bases or visit Mars (the later is especially pointless at
this stage); I was hoping for NASA to change its culture to become more
effective. In particular, it should be willing to lay off its vast
Shuttle support army and get out of the launch business. Instead, it's
doing exactly the opposite: not only developing new uses for the Shuttle
army, but also sizing its CEV just out of the range of any commercial
launcher so that it won't have to explain why it's not following its
mandate to support the commercial launch business.

If we wait for that sort of
money to materialise from reluctant politicians then manned exploration
beyond LEO is not going to happen. Take what Griffin is offering, I
seriously doubt much better could be proposed given NASA's current and
future budgets.

Your doubts are unfounded. MUCH better could have been proposed.

How in the hell is the experience base of operating in deep space on
another word the wrong kind of experience?

Because it's based on unsustainable practices. You may notice that we
got experience visiting the Moon before, six times. After that, we
stopped, because it was unsustainable. This plan appears the same to
me; overpriced missions on overpriced hardware, with no infrastructure
development, and no way it will be sustained beyond a handful of visits.

After 30 years of LEO practice and technology development is most
certainly needed before we venture much further.

No, what's needed is a sustainable approach, making use of commercial
launch providers, and the development of cislunar infrastructure.

Shuttle hardware is expensive, so is building whole new systems from
scratch but - I bet - even more so.

Right. Better to use the existing systems (and ones on the near horizon
such as Falcon, plus others that would no doubt arise in the robust
market a good space development program would create).

Use what you know, build only what you have to that would be my credo.

Would that NASA had the same credo! But they don't. Theirs is: employ
the people you have, build unnecessary hardware to keep them busy and to
keep those commercial launch providers from showing us up.

Shuttle hardware provides
well-known systems, as the basis of heavy lift and crew transport and
that has to put the aerospace engineers ahead of the game. Think of
the entire support infrastructure - VAB, crawlers, pads - and it
already exists and just needs modifying.

No, it needs scrapping. Think of all that stuff, and you can see why
NASA's launch costs are so ridiculously high. And that, in turn, will
be the primary reason the program is unsustainable.

As for commercial exploration beyond LEO, give me a reasonable business
plan that justifies that sort of expenditure

Su

1. NASA develops standard payload interfaces, at a reasonable size that
can be reached by at least 2 commercial launchers (and preferably more).

2. NASA announces a plan to purchase such launches for a robust program
of exploration, from the lowest reliable provider available at each
launch. (Yes, I know determining "reliable" could be a rat's nest if
done poorly, but suppose it's done sensibly.)

3. Launch providers compete to lower their own launch costs, in order to
get those launches and make a tidy profit. New companies arise to get a
piece of the action; launch costs go down, reliability and capability go
up.

It's not tricky. It just requires NASA getting out of the launch
business and setting up a decent system for selecting launch providers,
that encourages competition.

Then of course there's the purely commercial market, supported mainly by
tourism, but that has to go through suborbital and orbital before we
start thinking about beyond-LEO.

Finally, give some credit to Bush for enabling this point to be reached
and now the crossing of the Cassandra can now begin....

I give credit to Bush for ending the moon taboo at NASA. But I remain
disappointed with what NASA is doing with it.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'