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

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.......:

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.

"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.

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:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________

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

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.

"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

"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

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...