Capsule for new space initiative

Hi

There's always been something that I couldn't understand about space
'technology'.

As much as I want to see new things and new technologies employed I'm
afraid that design time these days seems to take even longer than ever
before. And then to make matters worse it seems like they continue to
reinvent the wheel.

Why will it take 10 years to get humans on the moon if it's been done
before?

If they really want to use a capsule like appolo then why not use
appolo? Why can't we at least use that technology. Surely they still
have the blueprints of everything they used in the Apollo era. And
with new and better computers (that surely take up less space and
weight), shouldn't they be able to get to the moon quicker and much
cheaper.

What am I missing?

"CA Zuke" skrev i melding
m...
Hi

There's always been something that I couldn't understand about space
'technology'.

As much as I want to see new things and new technologies employed I'm
afraid that design time these days seems to take even longer than ever
before. And then to make matters worse it seems like they continue to
reinvent the wheel.

Why will it take 10 years to get humans on the moon if it's been done
before?

If they really want to use a capsule like appolo then why not use
appolo? Why can't we at least use that technology. Surely they still
have the blueprints of everything they used in the Apollo era. And
with new and better computers (that surely take up less space and
weight), shouldn't they be able to get to the moon quicker and much
cheaper.

What am I missing?

They do not have the tools (or blueprints ?) and the knowlege to repeat it !
It has been 30 years and NASA has forgotten how to do it. Also one does not
want to use 30 year old computersystems etc.
The sollution is then to design the whole thing from scratch.

Also, in my opinion, the problem with designtime is a lot due to lack of
funding.
This new moonrace is not going anywhere without some serious funding. None
seen so far...

Just my opinion...
Ole

(CA Zuke) wrote:

What am I missing?

The redesigning Apollo to use modern systems, modern production
processes, etc... is essentially no different than starting from a
blank sheet of paper.

Look at it from first principles;

How is designing a new computer from scratch different from
redesigning a new computer from scratch to Apollo specs? Then you
have to redesign the supporting structure, then the airframe that the
support structure attaches to. Then you have to redesign the cooling
system, the electrical distribution system, the control panel to
accomodate the new displays, etc...

After all this work, you've produced a computer system that is greatly
substandard by modern measurements. And it won't be any more reliable
than a clean sheet design because you still have to verify the
software, firmware, basic hardware design etc... In the end you
haven't actually saved any money.

Apollo designs serve as a useful reference for what is needed to work
in LEO and Lunar space, but no more.

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

In article ,
CA Zuke wrote:
Why will it take 10 years to get humans on the moon if it's been done
before?

Partly because the problem really isn't quite the same -- objectives this
time will be different and probably more demanding. (And it doesn't help
that you first have to figure out what the objectives *are* -- Kennedy's
clear directive saved a lot of floundering and debate.)

Partly because NASA has gone from a young organization that could make
decisions quickly, to a top-heavy arthritic bureaucracy full of people
whose emphasis is on process rather than results.

Partly because NASA's budget was increased greatly to do Apollo, and that
has been explicitly ruled out this time.

If they really want to use a capsule like appolo then why not use
appolo? Why can't we at least use that technology. Surely they still
have the blueprints of everything they used in the Apollo era...

They do... but almost nothing in Apollo is a reasonable way to do things
any more. We'd have to re-engineer almost everything anyway, because
while the plans are still around, the tooling is gone and the experienced
people are gone and the available components and materials have changed.
And given that we have to do that, it makes no sense to duplicate the old
subsystem designs when we can do a lot better now. Even the Apollo guys
would have done things differently if they'd had to do it again -- many
decisions made in haste turned out to be less than ideal.

with new and better computers (that surely take up less space and
weight), shouldn't they be able to get to the moon quicker and much
cheaper.

Smaller and lighter computers would help -- and they're one reason why you
would not just copy the old subsystem designs -- but not enormously.
Apollo was not seriously limited by its computing capabilities, so an
improvement there does not radically change the budget or schedule.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

CA Zuke:
*snip*
If they really want to use a capsule like Apollo then why not use
Apollo?
-----
What should be reused from Apollo is the outer shape of the capsule
and it's associated aero-thermodynamic data. From there it would seem
prudent to review and blend system requirements from both American
and Russian capsules. You then have to let the engineers free reign for
a while before reviewing concepts with all the engineers and scientists.
From that detailed specifications and budgets get generated.

Lunar Lander control algorithms have seen some more recent use to
demonstrate powered landings on a single stage to orbit concept. The
electronics and hardware were completely different but the math and
the lessons learned getting to the Moon were there to build on.

The early phases are where most any program flounders. Usually the
patience required for detailed specifications and budgets does not exist.
Programs often start detailed designs with generalized hand waving and
budget WAGs. The discipline to complete specifications and budgets
first and to follow through by building to specification and budget is a
rare thing. The what-if and desire to experiment have to be recorded for
the next program without the contentious late jamming of personal glory
into the design/build cycle. Sorry a sore point, but some managers and
chief scientists will change things quite late as a demonstration of
power and importance.

(Anvil) wrote:
[...]
The what-if and desire to experiment have to be recorded for
the next program without the contentious late jamming of personal glory
into the design/build cycle. Sorry a sore point, but some managers and
chief scientists will change things quite late as a demonstration of
power and importance.

Are there specific examples from space programs?

/dps

dave schneider
Are there specific examples from space programs?

My personal experience is with aerospace materials and the equipment
involved in producing them and in civil sector production hardware.
Yet, I don't believe it would take long to spot personalities in any
program where the hardware looks nothing like the specifications and
the budget has gone out of control.

Another source I didn't comment on is in marketing a program (again
this isn't specific to any one sector). Specifications go up and
costs are understated to attract funding. Politics may dictate use
of specific contractors or specific regions of the US. Liberal use
of unobtanium might be invisioned to fund specific research....It
is unfair to use such a wide brush, that only space programs suffer
this, or that there is only the first source stated for project
slippage.

For me personally, I've been involved in both a multi-million dollar
program that was delivered on time and under budget and a similar
program using many of the same engineers, but specifications changed
after metal was already being cut and trying to pin things down was
like stabbing at a loose hamster with a dull fork, very bloody. If
you compate the understatement of costs and time with real costs it
ran 300% of budget and delivery ran one year late (est ~ 18 mil)

This Capsule program should be one year to specify and budget, one
year to design, and one year to build within 10% of a real estimate.
The problems, related science, and materials are knowns. Sadly I see
this turning into a ten year program with many false starts and at
five times the projected cost (perhaps even canceled). I am sure the
profits are greater in the latter (as will be the science), it's just
not an efficient way to field a system.

Ok, a capsule. If we assume KISS a place one can survive for
a time and return to Earth. Items like oxygen-candles, the
capability of landing on land would be good, a replaceable
heat shield, on board diagnostics, and modular serviceable
systems. Already enough to label it a new system, but the
Apollo size and outward shape are sound. Now what this
attaches to will be very different because the mission has
changed.

Since I only consider the capsule the up and down part, I
see no reason the same system couldn't be used on the
International Space Station or a Mars mission. Any further
capability should be added to attached modules and not by
redesigning the capsule. Propulsion, habitat, and mission
payloads should attach.

The habitat and propulsion seem straight forward, the LEMs
and lunar base logistics seem both very critical and very
open ended.

In article ,
(Anvil) writes:
|
| For me personally, I've been involved in both a multi-million dollar
| program that was delivered on time and under budget and a similar
| program using many of the same engineers, but specifications changed
| after metal was already being cut and trying to pin things down was
| like stabbing at a loose hamster with a dull fork, very bloody. If
| you compate the understatement of costs and time with real costs it
| ran 300% of budget and delivery ran one year late (est ~ 18 mil)

A mere year's delay and factor of 3 overrun is pretty good under
those conditions - there are lots of examples that have been much
worse ....


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Anvil wrote:

CA Zuke:
*snip*

If they really want to use a capsule like Apollo then why not use
Apollo?

-----
What should be reused from Apollo is the outer shape of the capsule
and it's associated aero-thermodynamic data. From there it would seem
prudent to review and blend system requirements from both American
and Russian capsules. You then have to let the engineers free reign for
a while before reviewing concepts with all the engineers and scientists.

Even if they reuse the Apollo shape and config, there is enough
of an argument that there will be a radically different density
variation that the thermal loading figures might be off by quite a
bit.

IIRC, thermal loading is a combination of aspect ratio and
wing loading. With wing loading being the greater portion of the
equation. You change the density of the capsule by using lightweight
materials and shrinking the avionics systems and you are essentially
designing a new thermal environment that would have to be analysed
from scratch.