|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Ray" wrote in message news:J6KXe.15619$Zg5.1847@trndny05... 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. NASA could focus on the real problem, which is high launch costs. For the $7 billion a year this program is going to cost, they could fund dozens of X-vehicle programs, each aimed at one aspect of lowering launch costs. The results of these programs would be public knowledge, useable by both the established launch companies, and the startups. Certainly this would delay our return to the moon, but it would make the return to the moon far more affordable and sustainable. Apollo wasn't sustainable due to high costs. Shuttle wasn't sustainable in part due to high costs. What makes anyone think that the Stick and the SDHLV will be sustainable? Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"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. Heavy lift isn't required for missions beyond LEO. It's a desire on NASA's part. There isn't any reason you can't launch all the pieces separately and assemble them in LEO. The biggest mass to launch for a Moon mission is the fuel and oxidizer to get you there and back. It's far easier to launch fuel and oxidizer on multiple launches to LEO than NASA would like you to think. 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. But the plan isn't to colonize the moon. The plan is to have maybe four NASA missions per year to the moon with maybe a dozen or two *NASA* astronauts making that trip. This won't open up the moon to colonization in any real sense of the word. 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. The risk may be low (in your opinion), but the cost is definately high. $10 to $15 billion, just to develop the stick and the SDHLV. That's $10 to $15 billion that could be better spent. 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. Yet it wasn't economically sustainable. NASA had plenty of plans to keep using Saturns to launch all sorts of space stations and lunar missions. But it was too expensive to do so and the entire program was scrapped, even before the Apollo lunar landing missions ended. Skylab and ASTP flew only because of the surplus Apollo hardware that remained after the last lunar landing missions were cancelled. What makes you think that the stick and the SDHLV will be more sustainable over the long term? What happens when the US public gets bored of landing a few astronauts on the moon every year? 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. That's clearly a problem with the SDHLLV as well. The size and cost is too big. 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 $8 billion - where's the rest of the money being spent? NASA needs to trim the workforce, close some buildings, etc. Cancel ISS, or sell it to Bigelow. Work on ISS will slow to a near stand still. It will certainly be a destination of the CEV, if only to give it a meaningful place to go in LEO (for testing), but beyond that, I don't see NASA spending much money to keep ISS going after it declares ISS "assembly complete" (which really means the end of shuttle flights). NASA is continuing to jump from mega program to mega program, providing us with nothing in the way of sustainable, economic, access to space. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"Ray" wrote in message news:22LXe.7296$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? The astronauts deserve it? That's hardly justification to spend about $10 billion to develop the CEV and the stick. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... As far as CEV, Stick, and Big Rocket goes, we have come full circle back to an Apollo CSM, Saturn 1b and Saturn V. These were vehicles we should have never discarded and abandoned in the first place. They were discarded because of the high cost. What makes you think the same won't happen again? We are, after all, presented with a plan to spend more time and money than Apollo, but end up with only a small improvement in capability. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
On 19 Sep 2005 19:31:47 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Will McLean"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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? If they're fixed costs, then it will cost more. My numbers applied to full program costs. And what was your source for the quote? Not a great one. A posting here, I think. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:06:56 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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. In the sense that the money could be better spent, yes, but it's possible that this is the only kind of plan that would be politically acceptable (those jobs have to be maintained). |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
In article p9TXe.8506$i86.1501@trndny01, "Ray"
wrote: That makes no sense. You have a spacecraft designed to operate outside of earth orbit, you make a few flights to the moon and then cancel the program? No. If you can't be bothered to read history, at least watch it on the History Channel. You're embarrassing yourself. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:21:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Ray"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: 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 ? That makes no sense. You have a spacecraft designed to operate outside of earth orbit, you make a few flights to the moon and then cancel the program? You mean exactly the way we did in the 1960s? I dont think any future American President, Senate or Congress will be that stupid enough to cancel the program with one exception. It happened once, and it's likely to happen again. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:42:27 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote: Heavy lift isn't required for missions beyond LEO. It's a desire on NASA's part. There isn't any reason you can't launch all the pieces separately and assemble them in LEO. The biggest mass to launch for a Moon mission is the fuel and oxidizer to get you there and back. It's far easier to launch fuel and oxidizer on multiple launches to LEO than NASA would like you to think. Sounds true enough to me. It would also be helpful to get more economical use of their chosen launcher. Keep those people working on the launcher working longer and harder, while the vastly larger workforce for the SDHLV could all be fired (nothing personal!). This large cut out their workforce alone would make more efficient use of their budget. However, the best aspect is that at these lower launch masses, then the commercial side can start to get in on the action. This will allow NASA to both reduce their launch costs, and to get out of the launch business for good. The last I heard was that their SDHLV could put 14 tons directly on the Moon. They could easily put much more mass into LEO, then to launch the required fuel on a second launch. The only issue here is in trying to cram things like a bulldozer into the smaller payload fairing. Still, they could always send up the parts to have this later assembled on the Moon. Seems like a good idea to me for NASA to build a fuel station in LEO, on the right orbit to later head on to the Moon. As then this fuel would be already waiting before they launched their main missions, where they can top up their fuel reserves as needed. You can include some simple life support here to keep things flexible and safe. A cargo delivery CEV to operate between Earth and Lunar orbit is also an idea, when to minimise costs and complexity, then you do not want to launch more than big dumb cargo canisters. The only issue is in servicing your CEV, where avoiding bringing this back to Earth saves the heat shield mass. And to allow for the lifeboat option, then you can just use two CEVs end to end. Better yet remove the human aspect fully and just have an automated system do this round trip, again, and again, and again. That way you can just have your humans working on either end, with the more rare trip between the two. This plan would mostly swap the SDHLV for a LEO Fuel Station. So the cost would be slightly cheaper to build, and a lot cheaper to operate. I think you have to face the fact that NASA's whole plan is to maximise their own budget. I would even go as far to say that the mass of their CEV could be a direct lie in order to make it slightly above the more commercial options. Not that their is any suitably good commercial launcher yet available that is. But the plan isn't to colonize the moon. The plan is to have maybe four NASA missions per year to the moon with maybe a dozen or two *NASA* astronauts making that trip. This won't open up the moon to colonization in any real sense of the word. Seems more like a case of having NASA appear to do something useful in order to justify their human space launch budget. From what I see they plan to do two human Moon visits per year, starting with four people per trip. Later on they will build themselves a base and to swap over the crew each six months. If they actually do something useful here remains to be seen, but we can certainly moan like hell until they do. What I would most like to see is a mining operation that is turned into a large base. Fit a airlock, seal the walls, then to pressurize. Growing food on the Moon would also be important. As when you have food to eat, water to drink, a place to live, power generation, and air to breath, then you have the minimum required to maintain a colony. Even NASA could do that. They just need to work on a mostly self supporting system, and to stop bringing their people and equipment back. That alone is a miracle for them though, where you can see the wonderful greenery on the ISS for proof. Cardman. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"Cardman" wrote in message ... A cargo delivery CEV to operate between Earth and Lunar orbit is also an idea, when to minimise costs and complexity, then you do not want to launch more than big dumb cargo canisters. The only issue is in servicing your CEV, where avoiding bringing this back to Earth saves the heat shield mass. And to allow for the lifeboat option, then you can just use two CEVs end to end. The mass of fuel and oxidizer needed to brake your CEV into LEO would be far higher than your heat shield mass. That's why people who look into this start considering the use of aerobraking to reduce the mass of the fuel and oxidizer needed. From what I see they plan to do two human Moon visits per year, starting with four people per trip. Later on they will build themselves a base and to swap over the crew each six months. Sounds a lot like ISS doesn't it? It started out with man tended visits, then switched over to crews of three (or two) that switch out every six months. If they actually do something useful here remains to be seen, but we can certainly moan like hell until they do. What I would most like to see is a mining operation that is turned into a large base. Fit a airlock, seal the walls, then to pressurize. NASA most certainly isn't planning on anything this large very soon. Given the budget isn't much bigger than shuttle/ISS, I don't expect results to be much beyond what we're currently seeing on ISS. Growing food on the Moon would also be important. As when you have food to eat, water to drink, a place to live, power generation, and air to breath, then you have the minimum required to maintain a colony. Again, I doubt this will happen. For the money they've got to spend, I'd expect to see a lunar base about the size of ISS. Anything bigger would require fundamental changes in the ways that NASA does business, and the stick, SDHLLV, and CEV are specifically designed to *not* require fundamental changes to NASA's infrastructure (and costs). Even NASA could do that. They just need to work on a mostly self supporting system, and to stop bringing their people and equipment back. That alone is a miracle for them though, where you can see the wonderful greenery on the ISS for proof. That's not going to happen the way that NASA is running things. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 06:48 PM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |