NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 10:12:21 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


wrote in message
roups.com...
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 ?

Sorry, but with NASA controlling both Satay (The Stick) and the SDHLV, I'd
say that the chances are zero that it will ever be used commercially.

Not to mention the fact that only NASA would be able (or willing) to
afford it.

On 20 Sep 2005 07:29:33 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

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 abandoned for good reason.

Hey man the new Mustang looks like it should, Pontiac makes a GTO again
and Chrysler makes Hemis once more, why shouldn't NASA join the retro
trend!

Because it's ridiculously expensive.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in
:

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*.


Risk at re-entry should also be reduced quite a bit, since a capsule
doesn't have the requirement to perform aerodynamic maneuvers during
entry and should be inherently stable as well.


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.

I'll grant that it won't be versatile enough to carry up ISS modules that
were specifically designed to be launched in the back of the shuttle.
However, we've already made the decision to end the Shuttle by 2010, so
saying that CEV is less versatile than shuttle because it can't install
modules that were specifically designed for the shuttle is a lot like
saying that Shuttle isn't as versatile as Apollo since it can't make it
to the moon. Different missions, different capabilities.

If a need arises to extend the station after Shuttle is retired, that
will be another mission. If someone wants to do that, they will just
have to develop (and fund) the tools to get the piece delivered and
installed.


--
I was punching a text message into my | Reed Snellenberger
phone yesterday and thought, "they need | GPG KeyID: 5A978843
to make a phone that you can just talk | rsnellenberger
into." Major Thomb | -at-houston.rr.com

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 don't see how that follows from your figures. Two manned CEV launches
can handle ISS crew rotation, and four unmanned, with payload instead
of the capsule, can deliver more payload to ISS than the same number of
shuttle launches. If your figure of $3 billion is for annual program
cost, that's more than a billion less than what the shuttle costs to do
the same job.

Will McLean

"Reed Snellenberger" wrote in message
.121...
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in
:
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*.

Risk at re-entry should also be reduced quite a bit, since a capsule
doesn't have the requirement to perform aerodynamic maneuvers during
entry and should be inherently stable as well.

But it has the option to do so. Just as Apollo did, you simply offset the
CG a bit to give you a bit of lift. Then all you do is roll the spacecraft
so that the lift vector is in the desired direction. This was primarily
used to perform a lifting reentry, which reduces the g-loads experienced,
which is important when your reentry is being performed at lunar return
velocities. This can also improve landing accuracy quite a bit.

Note that Soyuz does the same thing. If something fails, Soyuz performs a
continuous roll, resulting in a ballistic trajectory, with significantly
higher g loads than with a nominal lifting trajectory. While far more
uncomfortable than a lifting trajectory, crews have lived through ballistic
reentries of Soyuz.

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.

I'll grant that it won't be versatile enough to carry up ISS modules that
were specifically designed to be launched in the back of the shuttle.
However, we've already made the decision to end the Shuttle by 2010, so
saying that CEV is less versatile than shuttle because it can't install
modules that were specifically designed for the shuttle is a lot like
saying that Shuttle isn't as versatile as Apollo since it can't make it
to the moon. Different missions, different capabilities.

If a need arises to extend the station after Shuttle is retired, that
will be another mission. If someone wants to do that, they will just
have to develop (and fund) the tools to get the piece delivered and
installed.

Griffin mentioned this in his talk. While he's personally against launching
ISS modules on "the stick", he did say it would be possible, but it would
take time and money. You'd have to develop a strongback to mimic the
shuttle's payload bay attach points, and would likely have to requalify the
module being launched for launch on "the stick". That only gets the payload
to LEO.

I'm guessing here, but the two ways you could get from your initial orbit to
ISS would be the way Pirs was delivered (take a CEV service module and use
that to maneuver and dock or grapple the module to ISS or the SSRMS) or you
launch a CEV on a separate launch and have it dock with and deliver the
strong back/ISS module to ISS.

Again, that would take funds and additional development beyond the CEV
requirements, so naturally it's going to cost you more money to do such a
thing. Lastly, if you were to do such a thing, why limit yourself to the
stick and CEV? Why not launch on Ariane V and use the ATV's propulsion
module to do this mission? Perhaps even launch on Proton and use a TKS
derived service module to do the mission. The answer there is the same,
cost.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 13:19:44 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

"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.

Yes, that is correct. Although this is not my area of knowledge, but I
am quite sure that a returning CEV can do a path involving
aero-breaking within the Earth's atmosphere, before coming back out
and doing the orbital burn.

This would also allow the option of a direct reentry.

I see that one NASA's greatest crimes at the moment is to not store
fuel in orbit. That first step is a huge one, where the less mass you
need to launch the better. So it is quite insane to build a monster
rocket like the SDHLV to just put 14 tons on the Moon.

You could say that NASA is currently like the tourist who plans an
around world trip, in their family car, by taking all their fuel with
them. Space is exactly like here on Earth, when the more refueling
points you have the better off you are.

With a fuel station in orbit, then your upper stage during launch can
be reused to do your TLI burn. This one step automatically removes the
need for the SDHLV, the ~$8 billion build cost, and the army of people
needed to work on it.

So within the ideal future one of NASA's main points of business would
be just to launch fuel into LEO to dock with their fuel station. And
it seems like a very good idea to me to have the commercial people
work on exactly this aspect.

And so since I doubt that NASA could justify that their current plan
is better than this one, then that is why I would question just why
they should be allowed to do it?

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.

Their whole Moon and beyond plan can often sound like an ISS on the
Moon, and an ISS flying through space. And considering the disaster of
the current ISS, then I am quite sure that they should be banned from
trying to do that again.

So this is time for NASA to be creative and efficient. Their plan to
use the SDHLV does not provide much faith.

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.

I do not see that this is seriously hard thing to do. It would be a
strange idea to think that despite all of NASA's advanced technology
that they could not even make a hole in the ground.

Since this technology already exists on Earth, then reworking it for
Moon use should not be too hard. Best of all is that if you pressurize
early, then it is almost exactly like it is done on Earth.

The bigger your mine the bigger your living space could be. This can
certainly include entire crops of fruit and vegetables grown under
artificial lighting. You could even have a dairy farm.

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.

This I would more term NASA's caravan.

The mine base seems a better idea to me, when only by moving Moon dirt
and rocks you can build your living structure without having to
require much from Earth.

This you could say is part of the "living off the land" concept.

Anything bigger would require fundamental changes in the ways that NASA
does business,

NASA could contract a mining company to do the work. Train their best
and brightest to be astronauts, then set them to work on some suitable
hill side.

Just given time they could provide you with far more space than you
would ever need in the short term.

and the
stick, SDHLLV, and CEV are specifically designed to *not* require
fundamental changes to NASA's infrastructure (and costs).

That is exactly the problem. It is about time that NASA off loaded all
their jobs to the commercial companies. As I said this is all NASA's
attempt to keep the money and jobs at home.

This is exactly why they try to keep it commercial free.

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.

Then NASA should change or to make way for some organization who
would. As if NASA's fails to do well, then say the Chinese won't aim
to do as badly.

NASA's only job on the Moon should be to build a self-sustaining
colony that can grow and evolve. And when they reach that vital point,
then so should they start shipping in your common engineers,
scientists, doctors, farmers, etc.

The more skilled people that they have at their base the more that
they could then do. And since this is self-sustaining, then it costs
NASA nothing beyond a higher common wage and the ticket to the Moon
and back again.

Start shipping in entire families later on, then you would be close to
making your first Lunar City. A nice dream sure, but it is certainly
possible to do this.

NASA can then get to work on their Mars colony.

Cardman.

wrote:
CEV recreates Apollo and Soyuz but bear in mind that Soyuz was the
Russian equivalent to Apollo.

Not really - Soyuz started out as an independent orbiter and became a
dedicated space taxi. Apollo started as a space taxi/general purpose
orbiter and became a dedicated long range/long duration lunar craft.

Also understand that back in the early 60's Apollo was to be more than
just a moon vehicle. It was meant to be the standard taxi to take
astronauts to work.

You've got that quite backwards - it started as a standard taxi but
became an optimized lunar vehicle.

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

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

"Ray" wrote:


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Ray" wrote:

We humans are explorers. This is normal for us.

As a race? Not really. The bulk of the race is very solidly
stay-at-home, take-no-risk, eat-only-what-grandpa-ate.

Not true. If that were true, our primitive predecessors would not
have gotten out of Africa. We humans might have become that way over that
last 200 years, but we are explorers by heart, and we need to be inspired
and shown the way.

Demonstrably true - all you need is a tiny percentage of pathfinders
and explorers to blaze the trail and drive back enough nasties to make
the slightly less adventurous follow them, which eventually further
reduces the danger and even less adventurous follow them... Lather,
rinse, repeat.

Furthermore, one doesn't need to be a brave adventurer to cross
continents on a span of decades or centuries - if each generation
settles half a days walk from the previous, you can cross vast spans
without actually being that bold.

I think its pathetic how people are against human space exploration.

Few here are against exploration - most are against stunts disguised
as exploration.

Another problem is that people are cheap with tax money. They don't want
it wasted, so give it back in a tax break and watch how they spend it
important things like alcohol, tobacco, drugs and gambling.

You must live in a very interesting universe - one that bears little
relationship to the one the rest of us inhabit.

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

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

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Long distance exploration has been a desperate, dangerous, last-resort
behavior, undertaken by fringe elements or individuals who would otherwise
have been failures.

Nit: A lack of resources can drive a population mobile - but that's
the exception that proves the rule.

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

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

John Doe wrote:

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 ?

They also promised great things for Apollo - but they get a pass for
failing there. (Failing for much the same reasons as Shuttle failed.)

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

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