NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

George Evans wrote in
:

in article , Jorge R. Frank at
wrote on 9/19/05 9:43 PM:

Reed Snellenberger wrote in
.119:

snip

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."

Isn't it possible for ISS to do some unassisted assembly now that it
has its own remote manipulator?

No. You have to perform rendezvous and prox ops to get the modules within
the capture envelope of the manipulator. ISS can't do that, and neither can
the modules. So you have to have some sort of third vehicle - either a
modified CEV or a space tug launched with the modules - to perform that go-
between function.

As it is, CEV won't be available until 2012, and the baseline design won't
be capable of carrying modules to ISS.


--
JRF

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

Ray wrote:
I have question about all this. Many you seem to be anti-NASA and
anti moon, mars and beyond because you suspect its all bull ****. NASA did
a study on moon, mars and beyond before they presented it to the President
and Congress. If moon, mars and beyond was not workable with the budget
they receive, I don't think they would have presented to the President and
Congress, and I don't think the government would have agreed to it. What
makes you right about all this and them wrong?

You misrepresent what I'm saying. I'm not claiming it's not *workable*
(in the sense it can be accomplished). I'm claiming it's not *wise*
(in the sense the goals, even if accomplished, are not worth the expense.)

Your naivete' about the behavior of government is touching, btw.
What makes you think their idea of the utility of these programs
matches your own? Government operates by a kind of legalized
corruption, using your money to buy votes of special interest
groups. Where did you get the idea that this leads to an outcome
that reflects the common good?

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Ray wrote:
I have question about all this. Many you seem to be anti-NASA and
anti moon, mars and beyond because you suspect its all bull ****. NASA
did a study on moon, mars and beyond before they presented it to the
President and Congress. If moon, mars and beyond was not workable with
the budget they receive, I don't think they would have presented to the
President and Congress, and I don't think the government would have
agreed to it. What makes you right about all this and them wrong?

You misrepresent what I'm saying. I'm not claiming it's not *workable*
(in the sense it can be accomplished). I'm claiming it's not *wise*
(in the sense the goals, even if accomplished, are not worth the expense.)

I think the goals are worth the expense. This is probably the best we
can do it at this time. Remember, this is a pay-as-we-go program. Atleast
we will have the infrstructure, and I think the appeal of the program will
become more popular as time goes by.

Ray

Your naivete' about the behavior of government is touching, btw.
What makes you think their idea of the utility of these programs
matches your own? Government operates by a kind of legalized
corruption, using your money to buy votes of special interest
groups. Where did you get the idea that this leads to an outcome
that reflects the common good?

Paul

Ray wrote:

I think the goals are worth the expense. This is probably the best we
can do it at this time.

The latter does not imply the former.

Remember, this is a pay-as-we-go program.

Nor does that.

Atleast
we will have the infrstructure, and I think the appeal of the program will
become more popular as time goes by.

Infrastructure that is useful for... what? It's too expensive to show
a net return on any activity you might imagine conducting with it.
Like the shuttle, it's going to be a dead end.

History shows manned space programs decline in popularity with time, btw.
It happened to Apollo, and Shuttle, and ISS, and to the Russian space
program.

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
news
Ray wrote:

I think the goals are worth the expense. This is probably the best
we can do it at this time.

The latter does not imply the former.

Remember, this is a pay-as-we-go program.

Nor does that.

Atleast
we will have the infrstructure, and I think the appeal of the program
will
become more popular as time goes by.

Infrastructure that is useful for... what? It's too expensive to show
a net return on any activity you might imagine conducting with it.
Like the shuttle, it's going to be a dead end.

Infrastructure to goto the planets. I think many of you are too
focused on money here.


History shows manned space programs decline in popularity with time, btw.
It happened to Apollo, and Shuttle, and ISS, and to the Russian space
program.

I dont think Russia is declining. They are developing Klipper.

Paul

Joe Strout,
Why not allow the more than decade old LUNAR-A mission that has been
bought and paid for many times over simply nail the moon?

What the heck are these incest cloned borgs and brown-nosed minions
afraid of discovering?
~

Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been
the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't
been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.

In article 4d3Ye.8545$T55.1030@trndny06, "Ray"
wrote:

I have question about all this. Many you seem to be anti-NASA and
anti moon, mars and beyond because you suspect its all bull ****. NASA did
a study on moon, mars and beyond before they presented it to the President
and Congress. If moon, mars and beyond was not workable with the budget
they receive, I don't think they would have presented to the President and
Congress, and I don't think the government would have agreed to it.

You're new, aren't you? Missed out on previous experience with Apollo,
Shuttle, and ISS, to name a few?

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

In article Nt3Ye.8934$i86.232@trndny01, "Ray"
wrote:

I think the goals are worth the expense. This is probably the best we
can do it at this time. Remember, this is a pay-as-we-go program. Atleast
we will have the infrstructure, and I think the appeal of the program will
become more popular as time goes by.

This plan doesn't develop any useful infrastructure. That's one of the
major problems with it.

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

Ray wrote:

Infrastructure that is useful for... what? It's too expensive to show
a net return on any activity you might imagine conducting with it.
Like the shuttle, it's going to be a dead end.

Infrastructure to goto the planets. I think many of you are too
focused on money here.

Too focused on money? Absolutely not. You are far too *unfocused*
on the economics of the situation. This is not untypical when
trying to cloud economically dubious policies.

Money is a placeholder for human effort and other resources.
These cannot be ignored when judging the worth of a course of
action. They cannot be ignored when judging the sustainability
of policies, or the consequences of following the policies.


History shows manned space programs decline in popularity with time, btw.
It happened to Apollo, and Shuttle, and ISS, and to the Russian space
program.

I dont think Russia is declining. They are developing Klipper.

The space program in Russia became very unpopular, to the point
that to survive it turned into a profit-making enterprise. Darn,
it's that money stuff again.

Paul

In article ,
George Evans wrote:

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.

Two of the three points in your business plan are not about your business.

Sure they are. It's about the market, which is a key element of any
business plan.

You need to cut the apron strings with NASA. If NASA is as bloated as you
say it is, you should be able to "Fedex" them out of the way in LEO
deliveries.

If they'll buy from "Fedex", sure. If not, then it may still be doable
eventually, but it's much harder, as there are no other customers with
pockets as deep as NASA's. That's why, to provide the healthy
commercial environment we so dearly need, NASA should get out of the
launch business and commit to buying ground-to-LEO transportation on the
open market.

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