Why 13 years?

It seems to me that the new concept SDHLV and the "stick" does not
contain any significant new development. Just a repackaging of existing
hardware and technologies. What are NASA and contractors going to do
for 13 years? I would want to see it all happen in the next three years
or maybe five.

We have seen too many fancy plans with great computer graphics and
simulated space dockings. We have seen too many pomises that were not
kept.

If it were up to me I would just put a newly designed vehicle into the
shuttle and go to the moon with it. This new vehicle (we could call it
ZML -Zoltan's Moon Lander) would consist of two halves, both capable of
life support for the crew. One half would be destined for Moon orbit
the other for landing. Just like the Apollo.

Of course the whole exercise seems pointless if all we do is repeat
apollo. We have to build a moon base that is useful for something. For
example fuelling and launching rockets to the solar system using
materials that are mined on the moon.

We always talk about all the new development that has happened since
apollo. There haven't been any. We have been just playing video games.
We have been building faster and less reliable microprocessors and
inventing ways to waste cpu time.

For the record I support SDHLV-Stick

"zoltan" wrote in message
oups.com...
It seems to me that the new concept SDHLV and the "stick" does not
contain any significant new development. Just a repackaging of existing
hardware and technologies. What are NASA and contractors going to do
for 13 years? I would want to see it all happen in the next three years
or maybe five.
In the next 13 years NASA will finish servicing the space station
with the space shuttle, develop the cev, fly the cev, develope and fly the
stick and hlv. If we ground the space shuttle now, we could probably fly
the CEV in 5 years, maybe goto the moon in 6 or 7. We could also keep
flying the shuttle while building and flying the cev in 5 years, but the
government is not willing to spend the money for this. Their are already
complaints by people that NASA is spending too much money. Part of the
reason for taking 13 years is too keep costs down, atleast thats the
reasoning.

We have seen too many fancy plans with great computer graphics and
simulated space dockings. We have seen too many pomises that were not
kept.

If it were up to me I would just put a newly designed vehicle into the
shuttle and go to the moon with it. This new vehicle (we could call it
ZML -Zoltan's Moon Lander) would consist of two halves, both capable of
life support for the crew. One half would be destined for Moon orbit
the other for landing. Just like the Apollo.

The shuttle is too complex, too expensive, too old and cannot be
counted on to launch on time to keep flying

Of course the whole exercise seems pointless if all we do is repeat
apollo. We have to build a moon base that is useful for something. For
example fuelling and launching rockets to the solar system using
materials that are mined on the moon.
I agree.

We always talk about all the new development that has happened since
apollo. There haven't been any. We have been just playing video games.
We have been building faster and less reliable microprocessors and
inventing ways to waste cpu time.
The wast of cpu time today probably comes from ms windows, which I
dont think nasa will be using on their computers.

For the record I support SDHLV-Stick
I do too.
Ray

In article .com,
zoltan wrote:
...What are NASA and contractors going to do
for 13 years? I would want to see it all happen in the next three years
or maybe five.

Three years to develop a major chunk of new hardware is feasible only as a
crash program with unlimited funding and freedom to ignore red tape.
Roughly speaking, you need a year to get the design about right and build
up the organizations needed, a year for detail development and subsystem
work, and a year for testing and fixing. And the result is likely to be a
bit flaky, more a lightly-shaken-down prototype than a finished product.

(In favorable circumstances you can sometimes beat that, but the current
situation isn't especially favorable.)

Note that Apollo took eight years, despite generous funding, a new
organization with minimal red tape, and a strong sense of urgency.

If it were up to me I would just put a newly designed vehicle into the
shuttle and go to the moon with it. This new vehicle (we could call it
ZML -Zoltan's Moon Lander) would consist of two halves, both capable of
life support for the crew. One half would be destined for Moon orbit
the other for landing. Just like the Apollo.

Small problem: the shuttle's payload is 20-25t, and an Apollo stack at
TLI ignition was about 140t. Even quite aggressive designs with minimal
lunar payload and quite limited lunar-surface operations have found it
necessary to use 2-3 shuttle payloads.

Of course the whole exercise seems pointless if all we do is repeat
apollo.

Unfortunately, that is very much the way things are headed right now.
It's probably fortunate that they aren't likely to get there.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
zoltan wrote:
...What are NASA and contractors going to do
for 13 years? I would want to see it all happen in the next three years
or maybe five.

Three years to develop a major chunk of new hardware is feasible only as a
crash program with unlimited funding and freedom to ignore red tape.
Roughly speaking, you need a year to get the design about right and build
up the organizations needed, a year for detail development and subsystem
work, and a year for testing and fixing. And the result is likely to be a
bit flaky, more a lightly-shaken-down prototype than a finished product.

(In favorable circumstances you can sometimes beat that, but the current
situation isn't especially favorable.)

Note that Apollo took eight years, despite generous funding, a new
organization with minimal red tape, and a strong sense of urgency.

If it were up to me I would just put a newly designed vehicle into the
shuttle and go to the moon with it. This new vehicle (we could call it
ZML -Zoltan's Moon Lander) would consist of two halves, both capable of
life support for the crew. One half would be destined for Moon orbit
the other for landing. Just like the Apollo.

Small problem: the shuttle's payload is 20-25t, and an Apollo stack at
TLI ignition was about 140t. Even quite aggressive designs with minimal
lunar payload and quite limited lunar-surface operations have found it
necessary to use 2-3 shuttle payloads.

Of course the whole exercise seems pointless if all we do is repeat
apollo.

Unfortunately, that is very much the way things are headed right now.
It's probably fortunate that they aren't likely to get there.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |


If you are saying that we are not likely to get to the moon, you are
wrong. Manned spaceflight and VSE are overwhelmingly supported by the
congress and the senate and that is very likely to continue in the future,
especially since VSE doesn't demand a lot of money(7billion a year out of
nasas budget for 13 years).

Ray

In article BY%_e.26334$lW3.18798@trndny09, Ray wrote:
...seems pointless if all we do is repeat apollo.
Unfortunately, that is very much the way things are headed right now.
It's probably fortunate that they aren't likely to get there.

If you are saying that we are not likely to get to the moon, you are
wrong. Manned spaceflight and VSE are overwhelmingly supported by the
congress and the senate and that is very likely to continue in the future...

That sure isn't the way it looks to me. Congress and the Senate have been
consistently saying that they weren't buying any pigs in a poke and they
wanted to see details... and they're not sounding happy about the bottom
line on this one. This *estimate* is close to Apollo's *actual cost*, and
with no Cold War to drive it either. It is premature to talk about
"strong support" when there have been no actual votes on the funding for
this plan.

I won't even mention the deficit. :-)

especially since VSE doesn't demand a lot of money(7billion a year out of
nasas budget for 13 years).

NASA's private estimate, as of June, was nearly double that. There have
been no obvious cuts in the program since then; the reduction is pure
budgetsmanship. And that's *before* all the *unexpected* overruns, which
have been spectacular on most recent large NASA programs.

By the way, don't forget that a lot of the money for VSE was supposed to
come out of closing down the shuttle infrastructure... much of which will
not close down under the new plan. Seven billion is not a small slice of
the NASA budget, especially since that's the average, not the peak.

I can believe CEV getting built, and things staying more or less on track
to about 2010. The money commitment needed to get that far is not large,
it's tied to shuttle retirement, and Bush will be in office for most of
that time and he hates admitting he made a mistake. (Although if memory
serves, he has already backed off on VSE funding once -- in the last
budget he asked for rather less than the modest amount he'd promised NASA
only a year earlier.) Beyond that, though, the cash has to really start
flowing rapidly... and Bush will be gone.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer wrote:

Three years to develop a major chunk of new hardware is feasible only as a
crash program with unlimited funding and freedom to ignore red tape.
Roughly speaking, you need a year to get the design about right and build
up the organizations needed, a year for detail development and subsystem
work, and a year for testing and fixing. And the result is likely to be a
bit flaky, more a lightly-shaken-down prototype than a finished product.

(In favorable circumstances you can sometimes beat that, but the current
situation isn't especially favorable.)

Note that Apollo took eight years, despite generous funding, a new
organization with minimal red tape, and a strong sense of urgency.

Apollo was a start from scratch, and agree that 3 years is too tight.
If NASA started now at a reasonable pace, they could develop in about
seven years:
- SDHLV
- CEV
- Lunar Lander
- Lunar Hab module
- Lunar surface equipment

Then they could have a man on the moon by 2013, and a base in 2014. (I
see no need for multiple Apollo type missions).

The shorter the program, the less political risk and the more technical
risk there is.

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article BY%_e.26334$lW3.18798@trndny09, Ray
wrote:
...seems pointless if all we do is repeat apollo.
Unfortunately, that is very much the way things are headed right now.
It's probably fortunate that they aren't likely to get there.

If you are saying that we are not likely to get to the moon, you
are
wrong. Manned spaceflight and VSE are overwhelmingly supported by the
congress and the senate and that is very likely to continue in the
future...

That sure isn't the way it looks to me. Congress and the Senate have been
consistently saying that they weren't buying any pigs in a poke and they
wanted to see details... and they're not sounding happy about the bottom
line on this one. This *estimate* is close to Apollo's *actual cost*, and
with no Cold War to drive it either. It is premature to talk about
"strong support" when there have been no actual votes on the funding for
this plan.

I won't even mention the deficit. :-)

especially since VSE doesn't demand a lot of money(7billion a year out of
nasas budget for 13 years).

NASA's private estimate, as of June, was nearly double that. There have
been no obvious cuts in the program since then; the reduction is pure
budgetsmanship. And that's *before* all the *unexpected* overruns, which
have been spectacular on most recent large NASA programs.

By the way, don't forget that a lot of the money for VSE was supposed to
come out of closing down the shuttle infrastructure... much of which will
not close down under the new plan. Seven billion is not a small slice of
the NASA budget, especially since that's the average, not the peak.

I can believe CEV getting built, and things staying more or less on track
to about 2010. The money commitment needed to get that far is not large,
it's tied to shuttle retirement, and Bush will be in office for most of
that time and he hates admitting he made a mistake. (Although if memory
serves, he has already backed off on VSE funding once -- in the last
budget he asked for rather less than the modest amount he'd promised NASA
only a year earlier.) Beyond that, though, the cash has to really start
flowing rapidly... and Bush will be gone.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |


If moon, mars and beyond is canceled and we get the CEV built, what
do you see the US doing in space for the next 30 years? Going to the space
station is the obvious answer, right? But is that it? I see just going to a
space station for the next 30 years as a waist of money. Do you think its
possible that any future congresses, senates and presidents will say cancel
VSE because its not sustainable financially, and then what will the US do in
space since they know about VSE? If VSE is seen not to be sustainable in
the future maybe nasa will be told by a future US government that it has to
make more use of private industry to make it happen. I just don't don't see
a future US government saying VSE is canceled, just fly the CEV to the space
station for the next 30 plus years. That would be pointless. Wouldn't it?
What do you think?

Ray

Ray wrote:
If moon, mars and beyond is canceled and we get the CEV built, what
do you see the US doing in space for the next 30 years?

The same thing that they've done for the last 30 years: going around
the Earth in circles while funneling tax money to voters in the South.

Mark

Henry Spencer wrote:
In article BY%_e.26334$lW3.18798@trndny09, Ray wrote:
...seems pointless if all we do is repeat apollo.
Unfortunately, that is very much the way things are headed right now.
It's probably fortunate that they aren't likely to get there.

If you are saying that we are not likely to get to the moon, you are
wrong. Manned spaceflight and VSE are overwhelmingly supported by the
congress and the senate and that is very likely to continue in the future...

That sure isn't the way it looks to me. Congress and the Senate have been
consistently saying that they weren't buying any pigs in a poke and they
wanted to see details... and they're not sounding happy about the bottom
line on this one. This *estimate* is close to Apollo's *actual cost*, and
with no Cold War to drive it either. It is premature to talk about
"strong support" when there have been no actual votes on the funding for
this plan.

I won't even mention the deficit. :-)

especially since VSE doesn't demand a lot of money(7billion a year out of
nasas budget for 13 years).

NASA's private estimate, as of June, was nearly double that. There have
been no obvious cuts in the program since then; the reduction is pure
budgetsmanship. And that's *before* all the *unexpected* overruns, which
have been spectacular on most recent large NASA programs.

By the way, don't forget that a lot of the money for VSE was supposed to
come out of closing down the shuttle infrastructure... much of which will
not close down under the new plan. Seven billion is not a small slice of
the NASA budget, especially since that's the average, not the peak.

I can believe CEV getting built, and things staying more or less on track
to about 2010. The money commitment needed to get that far is not large,
it's tied to shuttle retirement, and Bush will be in office for most of
that time and he hates admitting he made a mistake. (Although if memory
serves, he has already backed off on VSE funding once -- in the last
budget he asked for rather less than the modest amount he'd promised NASA
only a year earlier.) Beyond that, though, the cash has to really start
flowing rapidly... and Bush will be gone.
--

At which point there will be an opportunity to take stock and
reconsider other options.

EELV will have more flight experience.

The viability of SpaceX and other alternatives will be either clear or
clearer.

The size of the SDV standing army will be clearer.

Doing the moon using an orbital propellant depot may start to look more
attractive.

Will McLean

Alex Terrell wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote:

Three years to develop a major chunk of new hardware is feasible only as a
crash program with unlimited funding and freedom to ignore red tape.
Roughly speaking, you need a year to get the design about right and build
up the organizations needed, a year for detail development and subsystem
work, and a year for testing and fixing. And the result is likely to be a
bit flaky, more a lightly-shaken-down prototype than a finished product.

(In favorable circumstances you can sometimes beat that, but the current
situation isn't especially favorable.)

Note that Apollo took eight years, despite generous funding, a new
organization with minimal red tape, and a strong sense of urgency.

Apollo was a start from scratch, and agree that 3 years is too tight.
If NASA started now at a reasonable pace, they could develop in about
seven years:
- SDHLV
- CEV
- Lunar Lander
- Lunar Hab module
- Lunar surface equipment

Then they could have a man on the moon by 2013, and a base in 2014. (I
see no need for multiple Apollo type missions).

The shorter the program, the less political risk and the more technical
risk there is.

The problem is that a program like this would probably
require NASA's annual budget to be doubled at least for
several years. That is out of the question politically.
In order for NASA to establish a long-term program, it
needs to find a way to stay "under the radar" by keeping
its annual budget as flat as possible.

- Ed Kyle