|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... Why geology is so different from other sciences, say, astronomy? You don't have to climb to the observation dome and spend a cold night there anymore. You rely on the data collected automatically. 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. dasun wrote: Moore's law is great, but can it go on forever? How long before we can build artificial intelligence as good as our own? What about the Given the average intelligence of the average Usenet poster, I bet that within 10 years we'll have Usenet bots indistingusheable of humans. What about the reasons for heading up, after all planetary disasters do happen and colonising other worlds is the best long-term bet for our species. Yes, but you have to approach it with rational thinking. How much a trip to mars costs? It will be such for a long time, if we continue rely on chemical propulsion engines. Wasting $100B on reincarnated moon landing problem solves nothing. The costs are worth it. I think some of these planetary scientists who are against manned space exploration in favor of unmanned space exploration because of cost are anti-human because they really don't care whether humanity lives or dies being limited to one planet in the future. They care more about the advancement of robots into space instead of the advancement of humans into space. Maybe because humans are illogical sometimes and robots are not, so they like robots better, maybe. I care more for the advancement of humans into space. I think robots should go before us to explore space but the main goal should be about humanity learning to live in space and spreading out, not robots. Ray |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
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? Ray "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. 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. 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. 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. 5) No mention of international cooperation. Don't get me wrong - I'm a good old-fashioned globalist. But I'll die of old age before they negotiate who builds what - and it won't be any cheaper anyway (e.g. ISS). 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. 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 $8 billion - where's the rest of the money being spent? NASA needs to trim the workforce, close some buildings, etc. Cancel ISS, or sell it to Bigelow. :^) OK, is anyone other than NASA fanboys here actually excited about this plan? |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Some questions struck me. The CLV uses a SSME on the upper stage, the HLV a pair of J-2s. Why the two different engines? This plan could be expending a dozen (or more) SSMEs a year. At that production rate, how much less do you pay per engine? How much would it add to development cost to put some or all of the HLV engines in recoverable pods? Will McLean |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
dasun wrote:
Ever hear of exploration geologists? Mining companies set up camp in the middle of somewhere - like Timbuktu - and the geologists move in to map the local geology. No ****, dasun. The point, which whizzed completely over your head, is that in some situations geologists are *not* sent in, because it would be far too expensive to do so. Even on Earth they use remote techniques when it's sufficiently cheaper. Paul |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Ray wrote:
What else should NASA do? It could cease to exist. Government agencies don't have a right to life. Paul |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
I think I read that CEV would be 5.5m across the base of the heat shield,
compared to 3.9m for Apollo. I haven't seen any figures on internal volume yet. I'd guess it'd be a bit smaller per person than the shuttle. I think a large CEV is fine for the lunar missions - but for ISS rendevous a Soyuz-class vehicle is sufficient. I'm sure it's too much money for NASA to have another vehicle - but hopefully they'd consider private industry at some point for the LEO market. Wishful thinking... But overall, I really think it's a good plan. If they keep the budget under control and try to live off the land, then maybe we can have a permanent lunar presence. "Ray" wrote in message news:22LXe.7296$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? Ray "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. 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. 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. 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. 5) No mention of international cooperation. Don't get me wrong - I'm a good old-fashioned globalist. But I'll die of old age before they negotiate who builds what - and it won't be any cheaper anyway (e.g. ISS). 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. 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. :^) OK, is anyone other than NASA fanboys here actually excited about this plan? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"S. Wand" wrote: Yes, there is a lot to like about this plan. 1) We're finally getting around to developing a Saturn V-class heavy lifter. Again... This is essential if we're ever to go beyond low earth orbit. No, it's not. There are many mission architectures that would work just fine with smaller launchers -- launchers of the sort, in fact, that are already commercially available, and which will have even more cost-reducing competition in the near future. NASA should be out of the rocket development (and launch) business altogether. Developing a new rocket is a big mistake, for a lot of reasons. 2) I think it is correct to focus on the moon for now. Agreed. 3) There's no technological risk in the hardware development. Then what do you call it? Bureaucratic risk? However you label it, there is substantial risk of schedule slippage, cost overruns, and underperformance, if past history is any guide. I think until we get a space elevator, getting to LEO will be an expensive proposition. 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 -- one thing history has shown is clearly is that socialism is enormously inefficient. (Ironic that Russia now has a far more capitalist -- and cost-effective -- space program than we do.) 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. And how many times will it continue to be a pinnacle achievement if we keep redoing it? Actually, I couldn't care less how much it's like Apollo/Saturn in terms of the hardware or mission profile. The objection is that it's too much like it in terms of its cost and sustainability (which are very high and very low, respectively). Use the same approach, and you'll get the same outcome -- maybe a half-dozen "missions" ending with no real development or infrastructure of any kind. That's not progress. Pinnacle achievements are great, but they don't get me a trip to the lunar Hilton. If we hadn't discarded it 30 years ago, then astronaut Husband would be walking Husband Hill by now. But we did, because it was too costly and unsustainable. Why do you imagine that it will be different this time? 5) No mention of international cooperation. Don't get me wrong - I'm a good old-fashioned globalist. But I'll die of old age before they negotiate who builds what - and it won't be any cheaper anyway (e.g. ISS). Agreed, the only thing worse than NASA controlling things is NASA cooperating with a half-dozen other agencies to control things. Two weaknesses in my opinion: 1) The Stick-CEV seems wrong-sized for LEO operations - too large. Agreed. And much too governmental. The decision is understandable because we're keeping the SRBs for the heavy lifter. That's no reason to make such an important decision! I'm groping for a suitable analogy... it's like saying, we'll build this new car with a propellor on the back, because we're going to need propellors for the boat we also plan to build. (Much better would be to simply buy a car, never mind that it lacks a propellor.) But it would be nice to see private industry step up for operations less than 250 miles high. Now you've hit it. But private industry needs to be given the opportunity -- nay, the market *demand* -- to step up. This plan does the opposite. 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. Right, which means no shuttle-derived heavy launch vehicle; develop standard payload interfaces and buy launches for them on the open market. Retrain all those out-of-work shuttle workers in something more useful, like interior design. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Alan Anderson" wrote in message
... "Michael Rhino" wrote: It sounds like the lander docks with CEV, they fly to the moon together, and then separate. Isn't this docking an extra step that slows things down? Why not have them fly to the moon separately? They'd each need a "departure stage" if it were done that way. Is there a problem with two departure stages? If they join together, they are twice as heavy, so you need twice the fuel to get them there. They need to dock in order for people/rocks to move between them anyway. The mission profile called for docking twice, once in low Earth orbit and once in lunar orbit. I was concerned that docking in low Earth orbit would slow the mission down. After they leave the moon, they dock with something, but does that something need any life support systems? They could stick with the life support system they had on the moon and use that for the entire journey both directions. And there's always the Apollo 13 lesson -- having a lifeboat is a good idea. A lifeboat with no heat shield would have a serious problem. It depends on which half dies. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
In article . com,
"dasun" wrote: Hope all you like but the brutal reality is that space does not rate much with most politicians and resonates little with the public - unless they see amazing things. In the real world the budget environment is very tight thus limiting what can be done, you want Moon Bases, you want Mars now pony up the cash. No, no, you're making wrong assumptions. I wasn't hoping for NASA to establish moon bases or visit Mars (the later is especially pointless at this stage); I was hoping for NASA to change its culture to become more effective. In particular, it should be willing to lay off its vast Shuttle support army and get out of the launch business. Instead, it's doing exactly the opposite: not only developing new uses for the Shuttle army, but also sizing its CEV just out of the range of any commercial launcher so that it won't have to explain why it's not following its mandate to support the commercial launch business. 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. How in the hell is the experience base of operating in deep space on another word the wrong kind of experience? Because it's based on unsustainable practices. You may notice that we got experience visiting the Moon before, six times. After that, we stopped, because it was unsustainable. This plan appears the same to me; overpriced missions on overpriced hardware, with no infrastructure development, and no way it will be sustained beyond a handful of visits. After 30 years of LEO practice and technology development is most certainly needed before we venture much further. No, what's needed is a sustainable approach, making use of commercial launch providers, and the development of cislunar infrastructure. Shuttle hardware is expensive, so is building whole new systems from scratch but - I bet - even more so. Right. Better to use the existing systems (and ones on the near horizon such as Falcon, plus others that would no doubt arise in the robust market a good space development program would create). Use what you know, build only what you have to that would be my credo. Would that NASA had the same credo! But they don't. Theirs is: employ the people you have, build unnecessary hardware to keep them busy and to keep those commercial launch providers from showing us up. Shuttle hardware provides well-known systems, as the basis of heavy lift and crew transport and that has to put the aerospace engineers ahead of the game. Think of the entire support infrastructure - VAB, crawlers, pads - and it already exists and just needs modifying. No, it needs scrapping. Think of all that stuff, and you can see why NASA's launch costs are so ridiculously high. And that, in turn, will be the primary reason the program is unsustainable. As for commercial exploration beyond LEO, give me a reasonable business plan that justifies that sort of expenditure Su 1. NASA develops standard payload interfaces, at a reasonable size that can be reached by at least 2 commercial launchers (and preferably more). 2. NASA announces a plan to purchase such launches for a robust program of exploration, from the lowest reliable provider available at each launch. (Yes, I know determining "reliable" could be a rat's nest if done poorly, but suppose it's done sensibly.) 3. Launch providers compete to lower their own launch costs, in order to get those launches and make a tidy profit. New companies arise to get a piece of the action; launch costs go down, reliability and capability go up. It's not tricky. It just requires NASA getting out of the launch business and setting up a decent system for selecting launch providers, that encourages competition. Then of course there's the purely commercial market, supported mainly by tourism, but that has to go through suborbital and orbital before we start thinking about beyond-LEO. Finally, give some credit to Bush for enabling this point to be reached and now the crossing of the Cassandra can now begin.... I give credit to Bush for ending the moon taboo at NASA. But I remain disappointed with what NASA is doing with it. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | July 4th 05 07:50 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 5th 04 01:36 AM |
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 6 | July 29th 04 06:14 AM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Astronomy Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) | Nathan Jones | Misc | 8 | February 4th 04 06:48 PM |