NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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).

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 |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

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.

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.

"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.