$64 Billion and seventeen years to land on the moon. What's wrong with this picture?

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 08:45:47 GMT, "Peter Smith"
wrote:

Scott Ferrin wrote...

snip

If they
were serious about going to the moon and mars the first

order of business would be funding the development of

a CHEAP way to get pounds into orbit. As it is, it just

looks like more vaporware for political purposes.

I think developing 'cheap' access to space would be way down on the priority
list. Maybe a little cheaper, but if its too cheap that would risk the
possibility of space supremacy slipping from the US.

Where is it written that "supremacy" rests on expensive launchers?
Is one launcher superior to another that can launch five or ten times
the payload for the same price just because it's engine has a higher
ISP and the airframe is made of expensive materials? The superior
rocket is the one that does the best job (hauling pounds to orbit) for
the least cost. Right now we're doing the equivalent of delivering
UPS packages in Ferraris. Yeah we got the best damn delivery vehicles
on the face of the earth but it's ludicrous from a business
standpoint.

Michael Gallagher writes:
Even so, why take so long to develop Constellation that NASA has to
figure out how to buy Soyuzes in the interim? I don't recall Apollo's
development taking that long, even accounting for the fact that the
vehicle was originally proposed before Mercury even flew.

Apollo had piles of money to spend. A better yardstick would be the
shuttle development program. The CEV program is at the very early
concept stage. In the shuttle program, this would correspond to a
period when the configuration of the vehicle was very much in flux
(they weren't close to a "design").

Space shuttle design studies were being done in early 1969. The SSME
was on the test stand as early as 1970. STS-1 didn't fly until 1981.

Not having a CEV test flight until 2014 isn't unreasonable when you
consider how long it took the shuttle to get to STS-1 (it's first
orbital test flight, complete with two astronauts in full pressure
suits and e-seats).

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

In article ,
jeff findley wrote:
Even so, why take so long to develop Constellation that NASA has to
figure out how to buy Soyuzes in the interim? I don't recall Apollo's
development taking that long...

Apollo had piles of money to spend.

Yes, but stretched programs cost *more*, not less. There is an optimum.

The way to minimize costs is to take all necessary time to resolve major
technical uncertainties, deferring flight hardware construction until that
is finished... but once it is, go full speed ahead and start building and
testing definitive hardware as soon as possible.

The idea of flying a Block I as soon as possible and then taking half a
decade to finish development of the definitive version is a recipe for
waste. One of the major lessons that came out of Apollo's post-fire
reassessment was to avoid, if at all possible, putting major engineering
effort into something that isn't the final product. Apollo's Block I/II
split was simply a mistake.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

"Neil Gerace" ) writes:
"Peter Smith" wrote in message
...

I think developing 'cheap' access to space would be way down on the
priority
list. Maybe a little cheaper, but if its too cheap that would risk the
possibility of space supremacy slipping from the US. China, without the
millstones of congress and public opinion, might run with 'cheap pounds to
orbit' faster than we expect.

OK, so if the USA wants to win the ensuing second space race, we'll have to
follow the script. We already have had the president setting a goal. Now
have to assassinate him or people will lose interest.

Grassy Noel

Oh, for humour, massive bravo ! I'm laughing and applauding as
I type this ( Not from a " Kill George " POV, but just from the
theme of redoing the 60s... ).

Andre


--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Scott Ferrin wrote:
[...]
Where is it written that "supremacy" rests on expensive launchers?
Is one launcher superior to another that can launch five or ten times
the payload for the same price just because it's engine has a higher
ISP and the airframe is made of expensive materials? The superior
rocket is the one that does the best job (hauling pounds to orbit) for
the least cost. Right now we're doing the equivalent of delivering
UPS packages in Ferraris. Yeah we got the best damn delivery vehicles
on the face of the earth but it's ludicrous from a business
standpoint.

Thus allowing it to be tightly controlled. And if the Chinese can
launch too cheaply, they can put up more stuff that the US DOD has to
worry about (or DoCommerce, as the case might be), so the US gov is
rooting for the Chinese program to be expensive :-{


/dps

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:08:06 -0600, Herb Schaltegger wrote:

When September 21, 2004 arrives, watch these films again and again in
glorious anamorphic widescreen and DD 5.1 through my 600 watt home theater
system, I will. ;-)

Wow, I haven't been following the new DVD release schedule that carefully.
This is the first I've heard of the release, and it's apparently true:

http://www.starwars.com/episode-iv/n...s20040210.html

Now Episodes IV-VI will join I and II, along with George Lucas in Love,
and the conversion of my Star Wars collection to the DVD side will be
(nearly) complete!

In article , Andre Lieven wrote:

Oh, for humour, massive bravo ! I'm laughing and applauding as
I type this ( Not from a " Kill George " POV, but just from the
theme of redoing the 60s... ).

Christ. Cheney wins in a landslide, runs the country in a very
disturibing Texan manner for four years, decides to step down and not
run, Gore comes back from the dead, triumphs, then a landslide in '12,
terrible scandal breaks, and... dear Lord, I don't want to imagine a
future Democratic Gerald Ford.

--
-Andrew Gray

Rick DeNatale wrote:

Now Episodes IV-VI will join I and II, along with George Lucas in Love,
and the conversion of my Star Wars collection to the DVD side will be
(nearly) complete!


Three good movies and two crappy ones have you will then....yes....

Yoda

Andrew Gray wrote:


Christ. Cheney wins in a landslide, runs the country in a very
disturibing Texan manner for four years, decides to step down and not
run, Gore comes back from the dead, triumphs, then a landslide in '12,
terrible scandal breaks, and... dear Lord, I don't want to imagine a
future Democratic Gerald Ford.


Imagine a Republican Jimmy Carter sometime....that's a scary one.

Pat

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 18:46:36 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:



Andrew Gray wrote:


Christ. Cheney wins in a landslide, runs the country in a very
disturibing Texan manner for four years, decides to step down and not
run, Gore comes back from the dead, triumphs, then a landslide in '12,
terrible scandal breaks, and... dear Lord, I don't want to imagine a
future Democratic Gerald Ford.


Imagine a Republican Jimmy Carter sometime....that's a scary one.

Pat


Wouldn't that be like trying to combine matter and antimatter?