NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

Joe Strout wrote:

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 --

We have a healthy capitalist market, (far more launches are commercial
than NASA). Prices haven't come down much.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

in article , Ed Kyle at
wrote on 9/19/05 3:08 PM:

Rand Simberg wrote:

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 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. 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. It
also lays out longer term plans and goals (the Moon, Mars maybe but not
probably) that could happen, or not, depending on national priorities down the
road.

I like the emphasis on the Moon. As a science teacher in the US, I am
dismayed that some college aged students don't think we ever got there. I
know this is fantasy, but I would love to see some type of activity on the
Moon, maybe a large mining operation, that would be visible in amateur
telescopes. What a visual aid!

Probably a bit more realistic would be pictures of Earth-rises in which
weather patterns are identifiable.

George Evans

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.

Hint: what did they do with Apollo ?

And do what with the CEV? Operate it in orbit only? No.

Where else do you want it to go ? Jupiter ? The CEV is just a glorified
Apollo with more people in it. Nothing more. It is unsuitable to go to
Mars. In fact, if there isn't room for proper exercise equipment, I
wonder if it is suitable for 2 weeks trips. They put the exercise
equipment in the shuttle for a good reason.


exception. The moon program might be cancled eventually for Mars, but to
cancel it and do nothing outside of earth orbit is just stupid.

But going to Mars requires something akin to the space station, not some
glorified Apollo (although the space styation might have one or two CEVs
to land people on mars, assuming some escape rocket has already landed
there before and couldn't carry people).

I think the
congress and the senate are dedicated to this program.

They are not dedicated. Once cost overruns start to make the news, that
program may be cancelled. What may be left is the LEO version ov CEV and
launcher. And if someones makes calculation that it would be cheaper to
simply recertify the shuttles, then all of CEV may be cancelled.

Jeff Findley wrote:
"dasun" wrote in message
oups.com...
Science is not the reason for going up - that is philosophical -
science is what you do when you are there, along with all the house
keeping chores. Colonisation, if it happens at all, is generally not
what you do when you first arrive on a new world, as the history of
earth exploration will attest, first you look around and then you
decide where to stay and why and that may take decades or centuries.
In short science is a very useful activity to perform if you have
decided to go to new worlds in the first place. Besides, find a
politician that understands science!

None of that will happen with the high cost that NASA is building into the
program. I agree with Rand's blog that NASA is likely to have four or less
flights per year to the Moon. This is nowhere near a colony, and at a cost
of $7 billion per year, you're not going to find anyone who would want to
pay to scale that up to colony size.

What's holding us back is high launch costs. NASA's exploration plan does
nothing to address this issue.

Nope, this is Antartica 21st century style. The saddest thing is you
could have done this for less money years ago with a couple more EORs
and off the shelf equipment.

Dave

in article , Joe Strout at
wrote on 9/19/05 3:50 PM:

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.

It's a perfect near term solution to getting big things built and sent to
Solar System destinations. Sending manageable pieces into orbit, putting
them together with crews moved in smaller, more reliable, vehicles, and then
manning them when they are complete. What flexibility. When a new propulsion
system is ready just substitute it for the older propulsion unit.
Conceivably we will never need anything larger than the CLV again. This plan
has good balance in the area of payloads.

snip

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.

What *real* evidence do you have for this claim that commercial providers
could do the same for less? What commercial provider has produced a man
rated launcher?

snip

George Evans

George Evans wrote:

I like the emphasis on the Moon. As a science teacher in the US, I am
dismayed that some college aged students don't think we ever got there. I
know this is fantasy, but I would love to see some type of activity on the
Moon, maybe a large mining operation, that would be visible in amateur
telescopes. What a visual aid!


What is more likely is that McDonalds, Coke or Pepsi will fund a flight
to Moon whose purpose will be to unfurl a HUGE banner with their logo on
it, so all kids who look at the moon with a telescope will be able to
see that logo FOREVER.


Since very litle of what will be done to go to Moon will be of use to go
to mars, the trips to the moon are a diversion. If mankind is to advance
exploration of space, it should be working on a mars mission. Unless you
work on it, you won't develop what is needed to get there and back.

In article , John Doe wrote:

What is more likely is that McDonalds, Coke or Pepsi will fund a flight
to Moon whose purpose will be to unfurl a HUGE banner with their logo on
it, so all kids who look at the moon with a telescope will be able to
see that logo FOREVER.

One can hope, anyway.

Since very litle of what will be done to go to Moon will be of use to go
to mars, the trips to the moon are a diversion. If mankind is to advance
exploration of space, it should be working on a mars mission.

Nonsense. Mars is not particularly important for mankind's development
of space; it is too far away and has a steep gravity well. The Moon,
OTOH, is vitally important, a gift from the cosmos that gives us a
stepping-stone to the rest of the universe, by virtue of being only a
couple days away and with a convenient gravity well.

The focus on the Moon is quite right. It's just a shame that NASA is
developing a new launcher as part of getting there.

Best,
- Joe

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

in article ,
at wrote on
9/19/05 4:50 PM:

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.

Possibly NASA is planning a crew of *four* based on the experience with the
shuttle in which some of the crew flew the plane and some were
*specialists*. Let's say the first mission had room for two geologists. Are
you telling me that every top notch geologist in the world would still
rather just sit home watching monitors?

George Evans

in article ,
at wrote on
9/19/05 5:53 PM:

snip

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.

But think of the possibilities of 1000 geologists looking through the
crystal clear helmet cam of one of our best geologist, able to discuss with
him real time (minus a few seconds) what they are looking at and suggesting
further courses of action. "John, could you break off a hand specimen of
that that so we can see..."

George Evans

in article , S. Wand at
wrote on 9/19/05 7:10 PM:

snip

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.

I don't see any reason why NASA wouldn't welcome private industry for
transporting astronauts to and from various stations and construction
projects in LEO. They don't manufacture there own T-38's do they?

George Evans