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

The picture is sketchy, and a little out of focus...We've done
Apollo/Soyuz, lots of Mir visits, done ISS, done Shuttle. Now
another country has put forward a design for a multi-purpose,
re-useable crew vehicle, the Kliper. And Arianespace already has
a decent launcher capable of launching Kliper into space.

If we are goinig to get to Mars it is going to require the
resources of the international community, IMO, and here are two
nations that are positioned to make a creditable contribution.
My point is that we should be well past the time where
international cooperation in space is regarded as a novelty.
Finance is a problem. The Russian GNP rose 9.8% last year.
Their economy is still in a shambles but at least not in a
recession. The Russians and the French would ideally pick up the
tab as their share for getting to go along on the ride.

I think the French and the Russians should work out a deal to
trade Klipers for Arianes anyway. Ariane was designed initially
designed to loft the manned Hermes vehicle but the project was
cancelled. Japan and India should be encouraged to get involved
as well.

We should use Kliper as part of a joint operation, and if Kliper
is not good enough, sit down with them and design something that
*is* good enough. Preferably one that does not have oxygen
canisters bursting into flame while enroute to Mars.

It will still cost $64 billion on our end. That is 1/4 of the
NASA budget. The cost would consist of management and
coordination costs, design and construction of a lander, subsidy
to some of the partners, and contingency planning in case one of
them backs out.

The ISS started as a US operation, but the Soviets have come on
board in a big way. I suppose Bush will need to sell the Mars
program as a US project and then "add" more folks later.

Kent Betts wrote:

If we are goinig to get to Mars it is going to require the
resources of the international community,

No, it won't.

My point is that we should be well past the time where
international cooperation in space is regarded as a novelty.

We are. It's not a novelty... it's a travesty. Competition is better.
The occaisional bit of subcontracting is better. Reliance on other
nations, especially those that are rife with anti-Americanism and
corruption, is a seriously bad idea.


The ISS started as a US operation, but the Soviets have come on
board in a big way.

Yeah. Look how well THAT worked out.


--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

"Alan Erskine" wrote:

Five billion dollars a year; five years for research and development; five
years for prototype flying and initial landings (testing of equipment in
space and on the Moon to make sure it works 'as advertised') and for
uninterupted science; five years for industrial startup; five years for
change-over to commercial operations (after commercial organisations are
convinced of capabilities/profit margins) and then the five billion per year
is used to develop Mars operations at a similar pace.

The problem is that once again (at least with this sketchy outline) is
that once again we find 'and then magic occurs' when it comes to
industrialization. I'd like to see the original document and see if
it actually addresses this issue.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

There is no product. There is no profit.

"Scott Lowther"

The ISS started as a US operation, but the Soviets have come on
board in a big way.

Yeah. Look how well THAT worked out.

I am looking and I see that the Russians are now doing the crew changes and
the cargo delivery.

(Hallerb) wrote in message ...


This time around, NASA doesn't have to spend so much on
boosters. Years of shuttle investment provide an existing
heavy-lift infrastructure. NASA's estimate for Shuttle-C
development would amount to about $3 billion today - a minor
fraction of the total program cost for a lunar program.
EELV, thanks to the U.S. Air Force, is pretty much ready to
go for CEV/LEO missions.

- Ed Kyle

Well shuttle C MIGHT be cheap to develop but how about operate? Take the
shuttle for instance. Its fully developed but cost way too much to operate.
Will shuttle C be a impriovenment or a fiancial drag?

Recent annual shuttle budgets were in the $3.2 billion range.
A steady shuttle-derived heavy lift (SDV) program, free of
the labor-intensive orbiter processing requirements, could
cost 2/3rds as much. At four launches per year, each launch,
capable of putting roughly three EELV-Heavy equivalents
(75 metric tons) in LEO, would cost roughly $533 million -
probably putting it below the recently increased price point
per kg of EELV-Heavy. More importantly, an SDV would simplify
lunar mission planning by reducing the number and coordination
of required launches - helping reduce the cost of spacecraft
and mission payloads.

- Ed Kyle

"Alan Erskine" writes:

Perhaps NASA wants to get away from the 'stigma' associated with STS? Two
failures, resulting in *all* U.S. space deaths...

There have been quite a few "space deaths", but it depends on how you
define that phrase. I'd define it so as to include the Apollo 1
deaths. These guys didn't die in their T-38's, they were sitting in a
capsule, in full pressure suits, when the fire broke out.

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

"jeff findley" wrote in message
...
"Alan Erskine" writes:

Perhaps NASA wants to get away from the 'stigma' associated with STS?
Two
failures, resulting in *all* U.S. space deaths...

There have been quite a few "space deaths", but it depends on how you
define that phrase. I'd define it so as to include the Apollo 1
deaths. These guys didn't die in their T-38's, they were sitting in a
capsule, in full pressure suits, when the fire broke out.

And neither Challenger or Columbia were in space
at the time of failure.

What Alan should have said was MISSION deaths.
That would include both Challenger and Columbia
while exlcuding Apollo 1.

One should say that Challenger was an STS accident
not a Shuttle accident... in other words, the launch
vehicle failed, not the orbital vehicle. In the case of
Columbia, the reverse may appear to be true at first,
but considering the orbiter failed only because the
launch vehicle dropped a piece of foam on it, it's
hard to blame the shuttle itself.

Bruce

Recent annual shuttle budgets were in the $3.2 billion range.
A steady shuttle-derived heavy lift (SDV) program, free of
the labor-intensive orbiter processing requirements, could
cost 2/3rds as much. At four launches per year, each launch,
capable of putting roughly three EELV-Heavy equivalents
(75 metric tons) in LEO, would cost roughly $533 million -
probably putting it below the recently increased price point
per kg of EELV-Heavy. More importantly, an SDV would simplify
lunar mission planning by reducing the number and coordination
of required launches - helping reduce the cost of spacecraft
and mission payloads.

- Ed Kyle
Can nasa manage to keep the cost down that much? If so it sounds fine by me.

Now before someone else asks how about keeping a servicable shuttle around for
specific jobs and flying it unmanned? Gut most of the man needed capacity and
totally automate it.

Gutting would boost the weight capacity and we could still have the ability to
retuirn large payloads if thats even needed?

"Bruce Sterling Woodcock" writes:

One should say that Challenger was an STS accident
not a Shuttle accident... in other words, the launch
vehicle failed, not the orbital vehicle.

True. But there was the mission where one SSME was shut down, and the
crew had to inhibit the sensors on the remaining SSME's in order to
get into orbit. Arguably that's a launch vehicle failure, but oddly
enough in that case, the launch vehicle *is* the orbital vehicle.

In the case of
Columbia, the reverse may appear to be true at first,
but considering the orbiter failed only because the
launch vehicle dropped a piece of foam on it, it's
hard to blame the shuttle itself.

It's a system integration failure. It would have been o.k. for the ET
to shed foam, if it weren't for the shuttle bolted to the side. The
problem was studied, but it was assumed that the RCC was "tougher"
than the tiles. That's an engineering failure *and* a management
failure for not properly solving this system integration issue that
surfaced on STS-1.

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