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
  #11  
Old September 19th 05, 11:47 PM
AA Institute
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


dasun wrote:
Well yes I am excited! After 3 decades of inaction and NASA busy work
it finally gets the show on the road - providing the politicians do not
get stuck into it.

Given financial & political realities this is the best we could have
hoped for. See it for what it is - a starting point that gives an
industrial and experience base for grander journeys in the future. As
someone who just remembers Armstrong taking his first step I would love
to have seen a more definitive Mars direction but I am just glad that a
window beyond LEO has finally opened let us hope the politicians do not
close it.

AS for the stick and using shuttle hardware, well why not? At least it
is a known and I have little faith in brand new systems and even
smaller faith in the nascent commercial space industry being able to
deliver on their promises.


Hey I am excited that there is *a* plan for going back to the Moon...
and we've just heard it from the horse's mouth!!!

That there is still a *will* and some thoughts around the *means* for
humans going back to the Moon within my lifetime is, in itself, the
most marvellous and most satifying thing I've heard in the past few
years...


AA
------------------------------=AD=AD----------------------------------
http://www.publishedauthors.net/aa_spaceagent/
"The ultimate dream adventure awaiting humanity..."
------------------------------=AD=AD----------------------------------

  #12  
Old September 19th 05, 11:50 PM
Joe Strout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com,
"dasun" wrote:

Given financial & political realities this is the best we could have
hoped for.


Since it's what we actually got, this statement is true by tautology,
but that's hardly comforting. I actually hoped for much better.

See it for what it is - a starting point that gives an
industrial and experience base for grander journeys in the future.


I think it gives the wrong kind of experience base for any grander
journeys.

As someone who just remembers Armstrong taking his first step I would love
to have seen a more definitive Mars direction but I am just glad that a
window beyond LEO has finally opened let us hope the politicians do not
close it.


Actually, the lack of any focus on Mars is the one good thing about the
plan; to attempt to put flags and footprints on Mars would have been an
even more colossal waste.

AS for the stick and using shuttle hardware, well why not?


Because it is far too expensive. It makes any real progress with it
untenable. Yet, supported by taxes, it competes with commercial
providers who could do the same work for much lower real costs, and at
the same time open up space for the rest of us.

At least it
is a known and I have little faith in brand new systems and even
smaller faith in the nascent commercial space industry being able to
deliver on their promises.


I find your lack of faith... disturbing.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
  #13  
Old September 19th 05, 11:52 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

dasun wrote:
Well yes I am excited! After 3 decades of inaction and NASA busy work
it finally gets the show on the road - providing the politicians do not
get stuck into it.

Given financial & political realities this is the best we could have
hoped for. See it for what it is - a starting point that gives an
industrial and experience base for grander journeys in the future. As
someone who just remembers Armstrong taking his first step I would love
to have seen a more definitive Mars direction but I am just glad that a
window beyond LEO has finally opened let us hope the politicians do not
close it.

AS for the stick and using shuttle hardware, well why not? At least it
is a known and I have little faith in brand new systems and even
smaller faith in the nascent commercial space industry being able to
deliver on their promises.


So nothing happened in the space exploration area after moon landing?
Apparently, Pioner/Voyager and other space probes, Hubble don't count
to technological and science progress. It is Startrek future vision
that matters, right?

It looks like humans have less and less role in space exploration,
pretty obvious, isn't it? Let's be reasonable and adjust the goals to
conform the reality.

  #14  
Old September 20th 05, 12:08 AM
jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
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?



The weak link in this plan is the missing data in between the landing
and the blast off.


'Four astronauts then would fly to the moon and descend to the surface
in the lander for a one-week stay, leaving the CEV alone in orbit.

...............[What are they going to do on the Moon?].......

After completing their initial four-to-seven-day mission, the astronauts
would blast off, rendezvous with the CEV and return to a parachute
landing in the western United States."



I find that at best incompetent, and at worst suspicious.
Do they have some unspoken/military reason for doing this???
When a govt agency asks the taxpayers to shell out
a hundred billion, the first and obvious question is
....why. Nasa can't answer that question so the
response should be NO.

And with the next administration facing huge deficits this
plan seems dead-on-arrival to me.












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



  #15  
Old September 20th 05, 12:19 AM
dasun
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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. 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.

How in the hell is the experience base of operating in deep space on
another word the wrong kind of experience? After 30 years of LEO
practice and technology development is most certainly needed before we
venture much further.

Shuttle hardware is expensive, so is building whole new systems from
scratch but - I bet - even more so. Use what you know, build only what
you have to that would be my credo. 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. Think of the flight hardware
and it is the same modifying game.

As for commercial exploration beyond LEO, give me a reasonable business
plan that justifies that sort of expenditure, some things belong in the
realm of government - for a time at least. When I see commercial heavy
lift, and I mean 100+ tons, making a profit then I will believe! In
fact when I see a commercial orbital manned system actually working
then I will be much less sceptical of their claims. Space is hard and
expensive.

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

  #16  
Old September 20th 05, 12:22 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

When you think of it, after Saturn V, N-1, and Energia, this will be
the fourth giant launcher of humankind...

  #17  
Old September 20th 05, 12:26 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Maybe we could do a commercial Skylab ?

Since the launcher exists, why not a single module, 100-ton class
commercial station.. ?

No costly assembly and with a 100 mass maybe you can keep the
consumable servicing to a minimum. Maybe build with ample design
margins and simple construction techniques.

Well : question, with the 125-t class launcher, assuming the Govt
builds two a year for its Moon missions, what else could be done ?

  #18  
Old September 20th 05, 12:30 AM
dasun
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You love robots and I marvel at what unmanned craft have done for solar
system reconnaissance BUT I studied computer science and geology and I
am very aware of robotic limitations. Robots are great for first
looks, but rate a very poor second to actually having trained observers
on the spot.

Take the wonderful mars rovers that have spent near 2 years on the
surface but have covered much less ground than Gene and Jack did in 3
days on Apollo 17. In field geology human observation and intuition
play a critical role, Jack saw some interesting orange soil and decided
to sample, and robots currently - and for a considerable time to come
will - lack the ability to function just this way. Doing science by
remote control is difficult and has some very real limitations.

  #19  
Old September 20th 05, 12:40 AM
dasun
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #20  
Old September 20th 05, 12:50 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If you studied compute science, then you must be pretty much aware of
the Moore's law. And you are certainly aware of predictions that
computer would never play chess well enough. Which means that any
speculation about robot's future limited abilities is groundless.

I see nothing special about your yellow soil example. With digital cams
ever increasing abilities, in 10 years you will have a remote picture
that is indistingusheable from what human is able to see on the spot.
Some obscure geologist sitting in the comfort of his desktop and
watching the transmission over the internet would notice something
interesting. Then you can fund a new mission *for a fraction of manned
mission cost*.

Even more likely, the amount of transmitted data in 10 years from now
would be so huge, that you have to employ a very sophisticated data
mining technique, in order to extract some useful information. No way a
trained Joe Doe geologist could be able to do that on the spot. Yes,
unglorified astronouts are just expensive technicians.

 




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 02:15 PM.


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.