|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The 164 billion dollar question
So now there doesn't seem to be much doubt about reusing shuttle components
to produce a heavy lift booster (based on the external tank with a cargo booster piggy backed on) and an inline solution utilising the SRB's to boost crew into orbit, with a CEV. All for the express purpose of returning to the moon, and then onto mars. A question does spring to mind. It is this: Why wasn't this done 30 years ago? Why do all the shuttle stuff over the last 30 years that does not seem to have added to our knowledge on how to do things in space - for example, can we: 1) weld in space (big engineering and construction jobs) 2) repair stuff in space (significant repairs not dorothy dixes for the cameras) 3) grow stuff in space, what stuff? chickens? rabbits? wheat? grass? boneless cubical GM monstrosities? 4) spin stabilise habitats 5) use inflatables 6) create an ecosystem to support long term habitation and exploitation of the high frontier 7) fix people - keep em healthy, sane and disease free? 8) just build and survive and prosper, and move on out? ? Hell, a mars/moon mission could have progressed in tandem with the Shuttle missions. Probably the total cost would have remained the same too - the ability of the beancounters to look after their pals and spend UP to a budget is legendary. One thing for sure, absolutely nothing that is proposed for the new moon/mars missions could not have been done 30 YEARS ago. So why do it this way now, in a kind of super apollo project that WILL succeed, and then give you another 30 years of stagnation, preserving the status-quo, and keeping the pudgy fingers of the existing suppliers of materiel firmly on the tiller of 'progress'? have I answered my own question? cheers |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Its just a JOBS program now, the shuttle will end because if it
continues flying more will die ( As such something must be found to replace it. Since they waited too long they need something FAST, and thats shuttle derived. I fear short term costs will be somewhat less, while long term it will cost much more. Just think of the trade offs that led to the shuttle design, we are about to do that again.......: |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 02:04:02 GMT, "blart"
wrote: So now there doesn't seem to be much doubt about reusing shuttle components to produce a heavy lift booster (based on the external tank with a cargo booster piggy backed on) and an inline solution utilising the SRB's to boost crew into orbit, with a CEV. Yes, but this is somewhat of a compromise. Use existing components to make the job cheap and quick. If this is the best idea is... All for the express purpose of returning to the moon, and then onto mars. You will find that people around here are in denial about Mars, for whatever *evil* schemes known only to them. Maybe that are simply concerned that Mars (the true destination) could start to override the Moon in the public's eyes. The gains of each destination can be debated long and hard. A question does spring to mind. It is this: Why wasn't this done 30 years ago? NASA had faith in the shuttle. Money was good. Everyone had a job. And their shuttle was even worthy to have Buck Rogers as pilot. So when Challenger blew then their perfect world came to an end. Why do all the shuttle stuff over the last 30 years that does not seem to have added to our knowledge on how to do things in space - for example, can we: 1) weld in space (big engineering and construction jobs) Actually NASA had a pending ISS project to do some welding in micro-G, but with all these delays I have no idea what happened. That was one of the few useful ISS research projects, when people would need to weld in space and you don't want their joints to fail. 2) repair stuff in space (significant repairs not dorothy dixes for the cameras) They seem to do well enough. 3) grow stuff in space, what stuff? chickens? rabbits? wheat? grass? boneless cubical GM monstrosities? You may notice that the ISS is void of greenery. This is kind of odd, when plants are known to help human moods. They have certainly grown stuff before, but there is no real attempt to grow their breakfast. Things could well have to change on the Moon. 4) spin stabilise habitats Every now and again NASA turns to their spin machine to see how it can work out, but no hardware ever comes of it. The good news is that the Japanese ISS module has a nice spin device in it. So stuff, and no doubt astronauts, can ride on it. NASA does not yet have any plans to make any type of large scale artificial gravity habitat. This is kind of stupid, when we know that lack of gravity is just not healthy. 5) use inflatables NASA currently plans to use TransHab on the moon. It was a mistake to not use TransHab on the ISS, but they did not see it as suitable then. Anyway, NASA's first moon base should be of the bouncy castle kind. 6) create an ecosystem to support long term habitation and exploitation of the high frontier NASA prefers to maintain their atmosphere by cans, filters and candles. What system is better seems inconclusive to me. Plants often know best, but chemistry could be better. 7) fix people - keep em healthy, sane and disease free? NASA has been more into human health ever since the shuttle took it's long break, mostly to save them trying to do anything else. There has been a few things here and there, but they are not exactly trying micro-G brain surgery yet. 8) just build and survive and prosper, and move on out? NASA has too many faults to do that. Now NASA has an opportunity to do some prime exploration, construction, and science work. And they would have to be big fat losers, who should never be doing space, in order to mess this one up. Hell, a mars/moon mission could have progressed in tandem with the Shuttle missions. Except for the cost. And NASA did need congress to approve first, when they have been keeping tight control over NASA's budget and missions. Congress also did not like NASA's last $400 billion plus price tag for a trip to Mars and back. Probably the total cost would have remained the same too - the ability of the beancounters to look after their pals and spend UP to a budget is legendary. Government projects tend to be inefficient. NASA is not alone. One thing for sure, absolutely nothing that is proposed for the new moon/mars missions could not have been done 30 YEARS ago. I guess not, but technology is better these days. So why do it this way now, in a kind of super apollo project that WILL succeed, and then give you another 30 years of stagnation, preserving the status-quo, and keeping the pudgy fingers of the existing suppliers of materiel firmly on the tiller of 'progress'? What follows NASA running their moon base will be interesting. That depends on how successful they are. have I answered my own question? I doubt it. Cardman. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"blart" wrote in message
... So now there doesn't seem to be much doubt about reusing shuttle components to produce a heavy lift booster (based on the external tank with a cargo booster piggy backed on) and an inline solution utilising the SRB's to boost crew into orbit, with a CEV. All for the express purpose of returning to the moon, and then onto mars. A question does spring to mind. It is this: Why wasn't this done 30 years ago? Why do all the shuttle stuff over the last 30 years that does not seem to have added to our knowledge on how to do things in space - for example, can we: Politicians didn't want to increase NASA's budget and they didn't want to kill the manned space program. Once the shuttle was up and running, the cheapest course of action was to fly it and not spend much on any other manned programs. One thing for sure, absolutely nothing that is proposed for the new moon/mars missions could not have been done 30 YEARS ago. So why do it this way now, in a kind of super apollo project that WILL succeed, and then give you another 30 years of stagnation, preserving the status-quo, and keeping the pudgy fingers of the existing suppliers of materiel firmly on the tiller of 'progress'? If we repeat Apollo and then cancel the program right away, we won't have much to show for it. If we have 6 flights a year, half manned and half multi-ton supply missions, we can over 20 years build up some infrastructure on the moon. Once the program is started, it may continue for the same reason the shuttle program continued. I don't see private companies paying full launch costs, but we may be able to get them to pay for equipment on the moon. A private company could build a bulldozer and pay 1% of flight costs and NASA would send it to the moon for them. Private companies would be more interested in a 20 year program than a 2 year program. Presidents change, so nobody can guarantee that the program would last 20 years. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Well, here we go again, inventing a problem.... "blart" wrote in message ... So now there doesn't seem to be much doubt about reusing shuttle components to produce a heavy lift booster (based on the external tank with a cargo booster piggy backed on) and an inline solution utilising the SRB's to boost crew into orbit, with a CEV. Worth a try if you want to do it fast. Or don't you think so? All for the express purpose of returning to the moon, and then onto mars. Ah, but those who have been around are anxious that when the Democrats get back in, they still have some way to space, not a half designed super space plane. A question does spring to mind. It is this: Why wasn't this done 30 years ago? Why do all the shuttle stuff over the last 30 years that does not seem to have added to our knowledge on how to do things in space - Not sure about his. I'd suggest that the moon was not the goal, political screw turning to finally finish of the USSR and get them either involved or scupper their near earth systems which arguably, they were better at the time. Remember, Apollo was stopped before the last flight which was planned, and what did they do with the hardware? An Apollo Soyuz link up and Skylab. for example, can we: 1) weld in space (big engineering and construction jobs) Do we need to weld? I'm sure small scale welding was done on Mir. 2) repair stuff in space (significant repairs not dorothy dixes for the cameras) Now come on, as this was not a planned task at the start, Iwould imagine apart from tools, yes, you could fix big things. Personally I'd be more worried about failures of things like Electron and the CO2 scrubber. Not a good thing if half way to Mars. 3) grow stuff in space, what stuff? chickens? rabbits? wheat? grass? boneless cubical GM monstrosities? Grass, hey man... sorry, your mean, um Grass, right. I'm a little worried about Chickens in space now... 4) spin stabilise habitats When I saw this one, I thought, Vomit. I think the human senses would be happier in zero go with some kind of countermeasure. 5) use inflatables Inflatable what? 6) create an ecosystem to support long term habitation and exploitation of the high frontier I agree, which takes us back to the Electron etc. 7) fix people - keep me healthy, sane and disease free? And what about childbirth in space? 8) just build and survive and prosper, and move on out? There needs to be a reason, and some quality of life. Terra forming? ? Hell, a mars/moon mission could have progressed in tandem with the Shuttle missions. Probably the total cost would have remained the same too ; I'd dispute that, as I don't think we know how to make human systems last, nor how to cure illness in space. I assume this is why crews are in quarantine before a mission? ) - the ability of the beancounters to look after their pals and spend UP to a budget is legendary. One thing for sure, absolutely nothing that is proposed for the new moon/mars missions could not have been done 30 YEARS ago. But apparently not looking to see if things come off during launch could not be done... So why do it this way now, in a kind of super Apollo project that WILL succeed, and then give you another 30 years of stagnation, preserving the status-quo, and keeping the pudgy fingers of the existing suppliers of materiel firmly on the tiller of 'progress'? The problem is that most of the so called experts work either for the universities, who may not have the hands on with hardwre required, and the rest have worked for those you cann the same old people, and thus, understandably have the same old ways of doing things. I certainly don't agree with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but hear what you say about the way things seem to get done. I recall some leaked memo in the mid sixties from someone at Nasa to a Guman manager. It was something along the lines of.. I'm being told that the LEM as it stands is about as ready to fly as a brick. have I answered my own question? cheers Self fulfilling prophesies abound today. Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Using shuttle machinery to make a sort-of heavy lift booster, sounds
terribly political to me. Namely, more of the same old. I think this "new" idea is a kluge where we really need the old Saturn V production line. Namely, the people that regulate the money, the politicians, still are out of touch with reality. The future out there, doesn't concern them. Kluging up a sort of a heavy-lift booster *will payoff the same people as now*, not advance the technology. And I'd look for the same consequences of the large political element as we saw in the Shuttle. Which actually wasn't that bad an idea, except.... I see nothing in this thing but same old under a spiffed-up label. Grump. -- Martha Adams |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:09:02 GMT, "Martha Adams"
wrote: Using shuttle machinery to make a sort-of heavy lift booster, sounds terribly political to me. You should look on the bright side. When this Moon plan first came about I pointed out that they would need a heavy lifter, but I was mostly hushed up when they wanted to keep the apparent cost down as people came to accept this plan. Ever since then there was the long slow path, as other people began to see that they would need a heavy lifter. Beforehand they imagined doing it with a small rocket, with assembly in Earth orbit, which IMO would have been crazy. So there was the question of when and how NASA would get their heavy lifter, when the price would not be cheap. This plan at least provides an answer to that problem, even though this heavy lifter would have to go through several generations before it obtains the ideal shape. Namely, more of the same old. Seems that way. I think this "new" idea is a kluge where we really need the old Saturn V production line. No chance. Technology has moved on since then. Their planned heavy lifter will be suitable, but I am thinking that they should try making this rocket a bit more flexible. Namely, the people that regulate the money, the politicians, still are out of touch with reality. Politicians always want to minimise the cost. This is certainly not the best idea for the space programme, when it will always cost more in the longer term. So like usual NASA is off-setting some design cost into higher operating cost. Maybe it will be cheaper for congress in the longer term, but more likely it won't. The future out there, doesn't concern them. They also see a future down here. Also I would say that congress was about as supportive as you could hope that they would be. Kluging up a sort of a heavy-lift booster *will payoff the same people as now*, not advance the technology. That technology will improve over time. For the whole heavy lift it seems that it will go through Shuttle-C, before the payload is put on top, SSMEs below, then a general second stage addition. The old Shuttle hardware has been subject to many improvement over the years, which means that NASA has a nice system there. The only problem is that it tends to be expensive. Removing the Shuttle will solve some of that problem. Thankfully NASA also intends to dispose of some of their huge and expensive work force. And I'd look for the same consequences of the large political element as we saw in the Shuttle. Which actually wasn't that bad an idea, except.... I see nothing in this thing but same old under a spiffed-up label. It does not seem that bad. They can launch both crew and cargo on their SRB derived launcher at quite a rapid rate. And later on they can do some big rare launches in their ET and SRB derived heavy rocket. It may not be perfect, but it is a lot better than what they have now. Cardman. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"blart" wrote in message ... .. A question does spring to mind. It is this: Why wasn't this done 30 years ago? Why do all the shuttle stuff over the last 30 years that does not seem to have added to our knowledge on how to do things in space - for example, can we: I think the first big diversion from a sane approach to exploring/exploiting space was Sputnik. After going to the moon for the sake of it, to out-engineer the Ruskies, we returned to the x-15's, in a manner of speaking, to build the shuttle. This we can blame on communism and all the cold war fears/politics. A short-term perspective as opposed to a long-range goal. The second great diversion was the notion of building a space-station for the sake of it, with nothing to do, no purpose for being. If we build it...they...will come. 'They' being some sort of science achievements etc. The long-range planning seems to have been forgotten in the rush to get it up there before the funding or shuttles ran out. And now here we have another great turning point facing us. Maybe this time the long-range perspective will be fully developed before proceeding ...you would think. But no........... The best justification I've heard for going to the moon is to find out the relationship 'between' the earth and the moon. Or was it the other way 'round? Oh yes, and to maybe send people to Mars one day. Why send people to Mars? What will they find there? They will find Mars is/was full of the very same kind of bacteria that on earth we spend billions to ...... ..................AVOID! Hmmm. Can you smell the pork? It ...has ..this ..distinctive.. smell. Smells like money burning a hole in someone's pocket. Our money... in their pockets. If we pumped those billions into this.....instead. Space solar power home http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/ Then the President could stand before the American people and dish out wonderful sound-bites such as this. .................................................. ..................................... .................... Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States. Applause Applause! POTUS: "Thank you, before taking questions I'd like to announce a new goal for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Under my direction Nasa will embark on a long-range program that will transform America from the world's largest energy ....consumer to the world's largest energy....producer!" Long disbelieving Applause! POTUS: "Thank you, Hellen Thomas you have the first question?" Q: Thank you Mr President, what other benefits are expected from this ambitious program? And I'd like a follow-up.... POTUS: "Nasa will end our dependence on fossil fuels that pollute this planet and threaten our very existence, due to global climate changes brought on by the complete dependence on fossil fuels". Applause Applause Applause Applause! POTUS: "Thank you" APPLAUSE APPLAUSE POTUS: "Thank you ...thank you, but my time is limited, Hellen.... Applause finally dies out. Q: When developing countries, such as China and India, become fully industrialized and burning ten times the fossil fuels used today, will this program be up-and-running by then? POTUS: "Only if we begin today, and fund it as if the future of the Human Race is at stake. Next question goes to...ah...Michael...Moore?" Q: Will this prevent any more wars....OVER OIL? ....you f'ed up sprout of a......[secret service scrum] "POTUS: "Yes" APPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSE APPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSE APPLAUSE short pause to rest their hands...... APPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSE APPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSE APPLAUSE APPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSEAPPLAUSE But this will never happen, just makes too much damn sense... Jonathan s 1) weld in space (big engineering and construction jobs) 2) repair stuff in space (significant repairs not dorothy dixes for the cameras) 3) grow stuff in space, what stuff? chickens? rabbits? wheat? grass? boneless cubical GM monstrosities? 4) spin stabilise habitats 5) use inflatables 6) create an ecosystem to support long term habitation and exploitation of the high frontier 7) fix people - keep em healthy, sane and disease free? 8) just build and survive and prosper, and move on out? ? Hell, a mars/moon mission could have progressed in tandem with the Shuttle missions. Probably the total cost would have remained the same too - the ability of the beancounters to look after their pals and spend UP to a budget is legendary. One thing for sure, absolutely nothing that is proposed for the new moon/mars missions could not have been done 30 YEARS ago. So why do it this way now, in a kind of super apollo project that WILL succeed, and then give you another 30 years of stagnation, preserving the status-quo, and keeping the pudgy fingers of the existing suppliers of materiel firmly on the tiller of 'progress'? have I answered my own question? cheers |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Martha Adams" wrote in message news:imuMe.66$_D4.26@trndny05... Using shuttle machinery to make a sort-of heavy lift booster, sounds terribly political to me. Namely, more of the same old. I think this "new" idea is a kluge where we really need the old Saturn V production line. I think the idea of the new heavy lift and cev makes sense. And I also think the ISS does too. But only if they are to be used for some purpose that makes sense. That's what's missing. A purpose. Namely, the people that regulate the money, the politicians, still are out of touch with reality. The future out there, doesn't concern them. Kluging up a sort of a heavy-lift booster *will payoff the same people as now*, not advance the technology. And I'd look for the same consequences of the large political element as we saw in the Shuttle. Which actually wasn't that bad an idea, except.... I see nothing in this thing but same old under a spiffed-up label. Grump. -- Martha Adams |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Space Station was supposed to be the "launchpad" of Mars and beyond
vehicles because in its orbit, it was supposed to be in the upper part of the 'gravity well' which is earth. It takes far more power/energy to get thru the atmosphere from Florida to the SS than from the SS to beyond. People seem to have forgotten this...much of the space program was based on 1940s and 50s SF...in the 70s and 80s, SF went all weird and psychological, instead of technical/forward thinking/utopian. Hence the blase attitude towards actual space accomplishments. Excite the imagination, engage the mind, and the body will make it happen. Not the other way around... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
questions about the universe... | Roger | Space Science Misc | 5 | March 17th 04 05:18 PM |
Big Bang deflates? | nightbat | Misc | 15 | January 18th 04 07:11 PM |
Oldest objects in the Universe!!!!! | Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th | Misc | 43 | January 7th 04 07:00 PM |
Something more interesting for you to read! | Greg Dortmond | UK Astronomy | 12 | December 22nd 03 04:51 AM |
ODDS AGAINST EVOLUTION (You listenin', t.o.?) | Lord Blacklight | Astronomy Misc | 56 | November 21st 03 02:45 PM |