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

NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old September 20th 05, 05:08 AM
dasun
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dare I point out to sarcastic dunderheads, who would rather insult than
contribute, that people add significant value to the exploration
processes, which is why on Earth exploration geology is performed in
conjunction with remote sensing. Mining companies would never solely
rely on remote sensing to decide to mine an area. General surveys are
done remotely, specific surveys of much smaller areas - identified
remotely - are done in person, and strategic decisions based on all
this information are then made. If we go to the planets or the Moon
then this is the model we should follow. People add cost, but they
also add much value.

  #53  
Old September 20th 05, 05:21 AM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Michael Rhino" wrote in message
...
"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.

Umm, what's the hurry?

It's not like its going to add days to the mission.

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.


Not really. You just need the 1/2 with the heatshield to have enough backup
power to last for re-entry. Again, like Apollo 13.





  #54  
Old September 20th 05, 05:43 AM
Jorge R. Frank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Reed Snellenberger wrote in
.119:

We get something that will initially be (at least) safer than Shuttle


CEV claims to cut the risk of crew loss *during the ascent phase* by a
factor of ten compared to the shuttle, but ascent risk is only about half
the overall risk. And the remaining mission risks for CEV don't
automatically drop just because the ascent risk dropped. So *at best*
you're talking about a 50% risk reduction - and that's only after the
spacecraft has flown enough times to demonstrate the level of design
maturity the shuttle has *now*.

and ultimately be more versatile than the orbiter.


In the sense that it can go to the moon, yes. For LEO missions, it's way
less versatile than the orbiter. In particular, "ISS assembly complete" is
about to be redefined as "whatever state the station happens to be in
whenever the shuttle stops flying, since there ain't no way CEV is going to
do any meaningful assembly."

That's perfectly alright as long as you don't pretend to have goals in LEO
like ISS and keep the program focused on exploration beyond LEO. But those
who pretend otherwise are going to be disappointed.
--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
  #55  
Old September 20th 05, 06:21 AM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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:

(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?


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

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.

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?
  #56  
Old September 20th 05, 06:23 AM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 02:04:25 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Ray"
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 am extremely excited about this plan!


You've already demonstrated yourself, prior to this post, to be a
naif. I was asking about people other than NASA fanboys.

I have a question for you.
What else should NASA do?


NASA should be working on making space access affordable. But that's
not something in its bureaucratic interest.
  #57  
Old September 20th 05, 06:55 AM
Ed Kyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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?

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


I haven't seen the CEV costs you cite in this article.
I've seen the recent charts put up by nasawatch, but
I don't see how it is possible to sort out development
costs from operating costs in these projections. It
still seems likely to me that a Stick-based program
would cost less annually than a Shuttle-based program
over the long term.

The bottom line is that NASA's budget is not projected
to increase much on an annual basis (adjusted for
inflation) even while it develops two new launch
vehicles and two new human crewed spaceflight vehicles
that will be bound for the moon. This sounds better to
me than the status quo that has NASA spending close to
$4 billion per year trying to keep shuttle flying in
low earth orbit only.

- Ed Kyle

  #58  
Old September 20th 05, 08:30 AM
Russell Wallace
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dasun wrote:
Dare I point out to sarcastic dunderheads, who would rather insult than
contribute, that people add significant value to the exploration
processes, which is why on Earth exploration geology is performed in
conjunction with remote sensing. Mining companies would never solely
rely on remote sensing to decide to mine an area.


They would if sending humans cost $50 billion.

General surveys are
done remotely, specific surveys of much smaller areas - identified
remotely - are done in person, and strategic decisions based on all
this information are then made. If we go to the planets or the Moon
then this is the model we should follow. People add cost, but they
also add much value.


Yes, but not $50 billion worth of value. When we have the technology to
send people to other worlds for a halfway sane sum of money, then and
only then will it make sense to do so.

--
"Always look on the bright side of life."
To reply by email, replace no.spam with my last name.
  #59  
Old September 20th 05, 08:40 AM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ray wrote:
Ridiculious comment above. We are going back to the moon to learn to
live their! Not just to pick up a couple of rocks!



You are naive if you think that. Nothing in the announced plan will
develop technology to land "space station" elements on the moon. Nothing
in the announced plan will have technology to sohoot mining equipment to
get some water.

All that is announced is a glorified 4 person LEM capable of staying 1
week instead of 2 days with 2 crewmembers.

Hopefully that glorified LEM will have room for a dune buggy line the
later Apollo missions.

And once they've made the flight to the moon to pickup rock samples, how
much do you bet that the program will be cancelled ?


The shuttle has been to the station far more times than Apollo went to
the moon. And the CEV , if it is ever completed, will have gone more
times to the station than to the moon.
  #60  
Old September 20th 05, 08:51 AM
John Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ed Kyle wrote:
The bottom line is that NASA's budget is not projected
to increase much on an annual basis (adjusted for
inflation)



Yeah sure....

Didn't they say that for Shuttle, and promise the shuttle would be fully
reusable with little/no maintenance required between flights and fly at
very low costs many times per month ?


Griffin mentioned reusability. In the end, it will be similar to Soyuz
reusability: they'll try to salvage some electronics from the cabin. But
the rest will be crushed and sent to smelters to be turned into beer cans.

One must not believe promises made at this point. And it is dangerous
for NASA to make promises because it may force it to end up making
compromises that will make the vehicle costlier and not as good, just
like it had to compromise with Shuttle.
 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 July 4th 05 07:50 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 August 5th 04 01:36 AM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) Nathan Jones Misc 6 July 29th 04 06:14 AM
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) Nathan Jones Astronomy Misc 8 February 4th 04 07:48 PM
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) Nathan Jones Misc 8 February 4th 04 07:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:21 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.