NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

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

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