Can Bush's plans be realized?

Shuttle keeps flying until 2010, that's 6 more years of agony and a huge
budgetary black hole.

$1billion over 5 years (i.e. $200 million a year) extra is not going to get
anyone anywhere.

$11billion transfered from other programs (what programs?). To develop a
Shuttle replacement (i.e. a simple capsule on top of a Delta V) industry
analyst have quoted prices of $20billion. So what gives?

Any CEV would have to be both a lunar lander and capsule in one, as there
isn't any money for anything else allocated as far as I can see. I'm not
sure that's feasible since such a vehicle would have to be MASSIVE (it's
theoretically doable, though). Launching it would be problematic or it would
have to be fueled in-orbit.

I can't see how this is going to work, unless Bush is assuming a massive
spending increase by some future Adminstration.

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message
...
Shuttle keeps flying until 2010, that's 6 more years of agony and a huge
budgetary black hole.

Pretty much unavoidable. Politics both National and especially International
require we keep both the Shuttle and the station for a certain amount of
time. As is we are going to get a lot of flack for retiring the Shuttle in
2010 and the station in 2016.


$1billion over 5 years (i.e. $200 million a year) extra is not going to
get
anyone anywhere.

A very disappointing amount.


$11billion transfered from other programs (what programs?). To develop a
Shuttle replacement (i.e. a simple capsule on top of a Delta V) industry
analyst have quoted prices of $20billion. So what gives?

Personally I think part of it is a heavy lift rocket but that is just
speculation.

Any CEV would have to be both a lunar lander and capsule in one, as there
isn't any money for anything else allocated as far as I can see. I'm not
sure that's feasible since such a vehicle would have to be MASSIVE (it's
theoretically doable, though). Launching it would be problematic or it
would
have to be fueled in-orbit.

My guess is modular design like the old Apollo.
Capsule, at least two types of heat shields, two different propulsion
modules, a Lunar Lander etc.




I can't see how this is going to work, unless Bush is assuming a massive
spending increase by some future Adminstration.

No the whole 7 billion saved by retiring the Shuttle and the station is
being moved to exploration.
The exploration budget will go from 3 billion to 12 billion a 4 fold
increase.

Any CEV would have to be both a lunar lander and capsule in one, as there
isn't any money for anything else allocated as far as I can see. I'm not
sure that's feasible since such a vehicle would have to be MASSIVE (it's
theoretically doable, though). Launching it would be problematic or it would
have to be fueled in-orbit.


The CEV needs to have a high specific impulse than chemical rockets will allow.
So we could spend the next 10 years developing advanced nuclear rockets for the
CEV. They could have a nuclear reactor that heats hydrogen gas to high
temperatures. At a given pressure and temperature, hydrogen molecules have a
higher average velocity than the water molecules of a hydrogen/oxygen rocket
exhaust stream. The higher kinetic energy of the hydrogen exhaust would use up
less reaction mass per pound of thrust generated. Such a rocket could also be
used to land on the Moon.

Tom

TKalbfus wrote:

The CEV needs to have a high specific impulse than chemical rockets will allow.
So we could spend the next 10 years developing advanced nuclear rockets for the
CEV.

The CEV just needs to be a stretch version of the Apollo Command
module. Add service/propulsion modules according to the mission, and swap
out bits on the inside as needed. The only things that need to be common
across all variants are the pressure hull, heat shield mounts (smaller
shield for LEO, bigger for lunar return), and chutes. If the interior is
designed for modular instrumentation and amenities the vehicle can
undergo continuous upgrades as technology develops. We need a jeep, not a
Ferrari.

.......Andrew


--
--
Andrew Case |
|

"Dholmes" writes:

Personally I think part of it is a heavy lift rocket but that is just
speculation.

We don't need a "heavy lift rocket". We've got Delta IV and Atlas V.

No the whole 7 billion saved by retiring the Shuttle and the station is
being moved to exploration.
The exploration budget will go from 3 billion to 12 billion a 4 fold
increase.

Only if NASA decides to buy all their launches commercially. If they
decide the "need" something like Shuttle C, billions of dollars will
be required to develop such a beast. Worse yet, it would enable more
of the shuttle infrastructure, standing army, and cost to linger
around for years to come.

Just say "No!" to Shuttle C! ;-)

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

(TKalbfus) writes:

The CEV needs to have a high specific impulse than chemical rockets will allow.
So we could spend the next 10 years developing advanced nuclear rockets for the
CEV.

Funny, then why didn't Apollo need these "unobtanium" engines? The
fact is that the technology needed to return to the moon, in terms of
engines, really hasn't changed since Apollo.

They could have a nuclear reactor that heats hydrogen gas to high
temperatures. At a given pressure and temperature, hydrogen molecules have a
higher average velocity than the water molecules of a hydrogen/oxygen rocket
exhaust stream. The higher kinetic energy of the hydrogen exhaust would use up
less reaction mass per pound of thrust generated. Such a rocket could also be
used to land on the Moon.

Such an engine could be useful, but you'd have to do a cost/benefit
analysis. You could do these missions with existing engines, so you'd
use that as a baseline for your comparison.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

(McLean1382) wrote in
:

While LOR minimizes mission mass, it has some significant
disadvantages: unless you are landing near the equator,

....or the poles...

your launch
windows for return to earth open only twice a month, more or less.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Dr. O" writes:

Any CEV would have to be both a lunar lander and capsule in one, as there
isn't any money for anything else allocated as far as I can see. I'm not
sure that's feasible since such a vehicle would have to be MASSIVE (it's
theoretically doable, though). Launching it would be problematic or it would
have to be fueled in-orbit.


Using a capsule as the ascent stage of a lunar lander (direct ascent) was the
assumption of many mission plans, US and Soviet, both before and after Apollo
went to the moon by Lunar Orbit Rendezvous.

While LOR minimizes mission mass, it has some significant disadvantages: unless
you are landing near the equator, your launch windows for return to earth open
only twice a month, more or less.

Direct ascent would, with existing launchers, require multiple launches and
rendezvous in LEO or L1/L2. But then, so would LOR.

Will McLean
..

Funny, then why didn't Apollo need these "unobtanium" engines? The
fact is that the technology needed to return to the moon, in terms of
engines, really hasn't changed since Apollo.


Well if you want it to be a single vehicle that can land on the Moon and return
to Earth, it should be nuclear. The Apollo Stack was really a series of
vehicles. What I propose is the develop a single vehicle that can be lifted
commerically to Low Earth Orbit and accomplish its objective from there. NASA
doesn't develop a base vehicle to lift it to Orbit, instead it would assume
that service is provided by a commercial launch company. The CEV is then
delivered to orbit by whatever means and from orbit, it goes to the Moon,
lands, and returns to Earth. That was the original idea for Apollo, since we
have more time than Apollo did and we already know how do build Apollo modules,
perhaps we can go one better. A nuclear vehicle would weigh less that the
Apollo stack that was lifted into Earth Orbit, since it would have a higher
exhaust velocity, it would use less fuel to accomplish the same thing and weigh
less. My hope is to have a single versitile Lunar vehicle that can accomplish
the entire mission without leaving parts of itself behind, with the exception
to the booster to lift it into orbit in the first place. Energy-wise, low Earth
orbit is about halfway to escape velocity, and it only takes a small amount of
additional energy to escape the Moon's gravitiational pull, so I think a
nuclear rocket is capable of such a feat. I think maybe two different types of
engines might be used, A vasmir plasma engine for reaction mass conservation,
and a more powerful Nerva engine to generate the thrust for landing and takeoff
from the Moon's surface. The entire orbital part of the ship can then be return
and reused, minus the nuclear waste generated by the reactor.

Tom

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:19:31 +0100, "Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:

I can't see how this is going to work, unless Bush is assuming a massive
spending increase by some future Adminstration.


Probably (although it would help matters if he has 4 more years and
can make those expenditures himself). At the very least, one would
hope that some aspects of the program begun this year, like the CEV
and new boosters, would be continued by a future adminstration even if
the Moon/Mars goal are (once again) scrapped.