NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

George Evans wrote:

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!


What is more likely is that McDonalds, Coke or Pepsi will fund a flight
to Moon whose purpose will be to unfurl a HUGE banner with their logo on
it, so all kids who look at the moon with a telescope will be able to
see that logo FOREVER.


Since very litle of what will be done to go to Moon will be of use to go
to mars, the trips to the moon are a diversion. If mankind is to advance
exploration of space, it should be working on a mars mission. Unless you
work on it, you won't develop what is needed to get there and back.

In article , John Doe wrote:

What is more likely is that McDonalds, Coke or Pepsi will fund a flight
to Moon whose purpose will be to unfurl a HUGE banner with their logo on
it, so all kids who look at the moon with a telescope will be able to
see that logo FOREVER.

One can hope, anyway.

Since very litle of what will be done to go to Moon will be of use to go
to mars, the trips to the moon are a diversion. If mankind is to advance
exploration of space, it should be working on a mars mission.

Nonsense. Mars is not particularly important for mankind's development
of space; it is too far away and has a steep gravity well. The Moon,
OTOH, is vitally important, a gift from the cosmos that gives us a
stepping-stone to the rest of the universe, by virtue of being only a
couple days away and with a convenient gravity well.

The focus on the Moon is quite right. It's just a shame that NASA is
developing a new launcher as part of getting there.

Best,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

in article ,
at wrote on
9/19/05 4:50 PM:

If you studied compute science, then you must be pretty much aware of
the Moore's law. And you are certainly aware of predictions that
computer would never play chess well enough. Which means that any
speculation about robot's future limited abilities is groundless.

I see nothing special about your yellow soil example. With digital cams
ever increasing abilities, in 10 years you will have a remote picture
that is indistingusheable from what human is able to see on the spot.
Some obscure geologist sitting in the comfort of his desktop and
watching the transmission over the internet would notice something
interesting. Then you can fund a new mission *for a fraction of manned
mission cost*.

Even more likely, the amount of transmitted data in 10 years from now
would be so huge, that you have to employ a very sophisticated data
mining technique, in order to extract some useful information. No way a
trained Joe Doe geologist could be able to do that on the spot. Yes,
unglorified astronouts are just expensive technicians.

Possibly NASA is planning a crew of *four* based on the experience with the
shuttle in which some of the crew flew the plane and some were
*specialists*. Let's say the first mission had room for two geologists. Are
you telling me that every top notch geologist in the world would still
rather just sit home watching monitors?

George Evans

in article ,
at wrote on
9/19/05 5:53 PM:

snip

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.

But think of the possibilities of 1000 geologists looking through the
crystal clear helmet cam of one of our best geologist, able to discuss with
him real time (minus a few seconds) what they are looking at and suggesting
further courses of action. "John, could you break off a hand specimen of
that that so we can see..."

George Evans

in article , S. Wand at
wrote on 9/19/05 7:10 PM:

snip

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.

I don't see any reason why NASA wouldn't welcome private industry for
transporting astronauts to and from various stations and construction
projects in LEO. They don't manufacture there own T-38's do they?

George Evans

John Doe wrote:
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.

If the program is "Apollo on steroids", then the Low Earth Orbit
version of the CEV is just "Soyuz on Viagra" - delivers a bit more and
can reenter a few times.

Reed Snellenberger wrote in
.121:

"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.

Offset by the design vulnerability of jettisoning critical components
during dynamic flight (in the case of the CEV, the service module and the
heat shield).

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.

Again, that's fine as long as people don't pretend otherwise.

--
JRF

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

On 20 Sep 2005 11:33:52 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Will"
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

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.

If crews are rotated twice a year--I thought there was a desire for
ninety days. But it comes down to a) if the $3B number is correct and
b) it represents total costs for the flights, rather than simply fixed
annual costs. If the latter, then one has to add the marginal costs
as well. Also factor in whatever costs are associated with the lack
of ability to return large payloads.

We can't really compare the program costs, though, until we see more
detailed estimates. My point is that it doesn't look like a bargain,
compared to Shuttle.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in
:

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

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.

That requalification will, for most of the modules, involve power and
thermal issues as well. Won't be cheap.

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.

I'm guessing it will be expensive enough that it won't even be attempted.
CEV development may not break the bank at NASA, but it will be expensive
enough that any semblance of requirements creep will have to be
vigorously stamped out.

--
JRF

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

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:40:06 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

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.

Because the market is not, in fact, healthy. It is trivially small.