NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

"Ray" wrote in message
news:GlKXe.6343$N35.5605@trndny09...
Ridiculious comment above. We are going back to the moon to learn to
live their! Not just to pick up a couple of rocks! Just like we have
learned to live in a space station in orbit for 6 months, we will learn to
live on the moon, another planet, and then we will transfer that knowledge
to living on Mars. We will learn to live off the land, and we will become
better humans. What is so wrong with this. We humans are explorers.
This
is normal for us. This is well worth the cost.

Then you're not understanding NASA's announcement very well. From the looks
of the plan, about all they could sustain is about four lunar missions per
year. In other words, this is only a bit bigger than Apollo. It's nowhere
near the capability to build a sustainable lunar base of the size you seem
to be thinking of.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Ray" wrote in message
news9TXe.8506$i86.1501@trndny01...
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. And do what with the CEV? Operate it in orbit only? No.
It
was not designed for that. I dont think any future American President,
Senate or Congress will be that stupid enough to cancel the program with
one
exception. The moon program might be cancled eventually for Mars, but to
cancel it and do nothing outside of earth orbit is just stupid. I think
the
congress and the senate are dedicated to this program.

Yet that's exactly what's happening to ISS. NASA needs to severely cut back
on the number of planned shuttle flights to ISS in order to end the shuttle
program by 2010. Furthermore, NASA has yet to develop the crew return
vehicle that it agreed to develop and deploy in order to increase the ISS
crew size beyond three. Maybe we'll see CEV flying to ISS by 2012, but
that's many years beyond the initial plan and many years beyond the date
that Russia agreed to fly US astronauts to and from ISS on Soyuz.

What makes you think that this next program will be any different than how
NASA has run ISS? What will they cut from the lunar exploration program
when they run into cost overruns like they did on ISS and congress and the
administration tell them to redesign the program? Have you learned nothing
from the shuttle/ISS programs?

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Alex Terrell wrote:
In short, it's not as disastrous as the previuos (Shuttle) strategy.


Even the CEV is gross overkill in the near term, if it's just going to
fly to ISS. So as well as recreating Apollo, NASA's going to recreate
Soyuz.


CEV recreates Apollo and Soyuz but bear in mind that Soyuz was the
Russian equivalent to Apollo. 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. Think of AAP,
unfortunately it morphed into the single program Skylab, but NASA had
alot of plans for the CSM back in the mid 60's. In a sense the Apollo
CSM was also meant to be a shuttle too, albeit a non reusable one with
no cargo capability. Like Big Gemini, however, I'm sure there were
designs for later generation Apollo based spacecraft that had cargo
capability.

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.

Hey man the new Mustang looks like it should, Pontiac makes a GTO again
and Chrysler makes Hemis once more, why shouldn't NASA join the retro
trend!

Gene DiGennaro
Baltimore, Md.

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