A Closer Look at NASA's New Exploration Architecture

Just found an article on Marstoday.
Only time to scan it but it looks like a good breakdown of the architecture.

http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069

also pay close attention to this image:

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/nas.esas.16.l.jpg

Note that almost all are well under 20,000 kgs.

I have a question about the article below. At the end of the article
the author says that congress didn't give their support to ESAS yet. I
thought they did and if not when will they meet to make a decision on
whether to support ESAS or not?

Ray
"Douglas Holmes" wrote in message
news:WRr2f.11209$Tn5.9001@trnddc08...
Just found an article on Marstoday.
Only time to scan it but it looks like a good breakdown of the
architecture.

http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069

also pay close attention to this image:

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/nas.esas.16.l.jpg

Note that almost all are well under 20,000 kgs.

Douglas Holmes wrote:

Just found an article on Marstoday.
Only time to scan it but it looks like a good breakdown of the architecture.



Hmmm... when it's implied that they are just redoing Apollo, things
like this don't help their case:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/nas.esas.17.l.jpg
Big Gemini, meet Big Apollo. :-)

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Hmmm... when it's implied that they are just redoing Apollo, things
like this don't help their case:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/nas.esas.17.l.jpg
Big Gemini, meet Big Apollo. :-)

Redoing some Apollo concepts with newer materials and up-to-date engineering
might be just the right thing. Sometimes, you really can do things right
the first time -- discounting the January 1967 pad fire, of course...

More generally, it's possible that the whole "takes off like a rocket and
lands like an airplane" thing has had its day.


Jim McCauley

"Jim McCauley" wrote in message
...
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Hmmm... when it's implied that they are just redoing Apollo, things
like this don't help their case:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/nas.esas.17.l.jpg
Big Gemini, meet Big Apollo. :-)

Redoing some Apollo concepts with newer materials and up-to-date
engineering
might be just the right thing. Sometimes, you really can do things right
the first time -- discounting the January 1967 pad fire, of course...

More generally, it's possible that the whole "takes off like a rocket and
lands like an airplane" thing has had its day.


Jim McCauley

I agree. Considering the budget that NASA has, I don't think that
we could expect much better, but regardless of budget, I think redoing the
Apollo concept would be great under any budget. It's also the safest way we
know of putting humans in space, since we donot have the space elevator yet.
Apollo was the greatest program and the greatest success NASA has had since
its inception, so why not redo it on a larger scale as we push out to the
moon, mars and beyond. I think newer ideas that are as great or greater
than Apollo will cost a lot more money, and the nation would probably not
want to spend the money.
As for the shuttle and the concept of "takes off like a rocket and
land like an airplane", I think that concept and a vehicle like the shuttle
belong in the hands of private industry. The idea of putting satellites
into orbit, bringing them back to earth and fixing them in orbit sounds like
something a private company should do today, not NASA.

Ray

Jim McCauley wrote:


Redoing some Apollo concepts with newer materials and up-to-date engineering
might be just the right thing. Sometimes, you really can do things right
the first time -- discounting the January 1967 pad fire, of course...



Yeah, but look at it...even the window layout is the same- and that
heatshield is going to be very, very, heavy
that was one failing of the Apollo CM in comparison to the Soyuz RV- for
it's weight the CM didn't have that much internal volume. The Apollo CM
weighed as much as the whole Soyuz spacecraft, while having inferior
internal volume.
The shape should be more like the Soyuz "gumdrop" rather than the Apollo
squat cone.
The closer you can get the shape of the crew module to a sphere, the
more volume per weight you get.
You can't go with a perfect sphere because of the need to do a lifting
reentry to cut deceleration G's at lunar return velocities, but the
Apollo shape seems to overdo it in that regard.

More generally, it's possible that the whole "takes off like a rocket and
lands like an airplane" thing has had its day.



That at least seems like a sound move.
That Lockheed design looked pretty nonsensical; if you are going with a
lifting body concept you should have it be able to glide land. If you
are still doing the landing by parachute you really haven't gained that
much over the ballistic capsule.
A ballistic capsule that opens its chute at fairly high altitude might
be able to do a fairly precise touchdown by using a guided chute.

Pat

"Ray" wrote in message news:B6w2f.759$t43.433@trndny02...
I have a question about the article below. At the end of the article
the author says that congress didn't give their support to ESAS yet. I
thought they did and if not when will they meet to make a decision on
whether to support ESAS or not?



It's never too late to stop a mistake. We're going to the moon
so we can go to Mars. So the question becomes why go to Mars?
Without answering that question there can be no justification
for going to the Moon. If the answer is so we can then go
to someplace else, then the whole charade is exposed.

This is simply a 'vision' intended to generate endless missions.
Intended only to benefit Nasa, not us here on earth.

As such this goal is devoid of any meaning, benefits or justification.
Nasa is exploiting the taxpayer, not space with this goal.
I intend to stir up as much crap as I can in the coming weeks
to get the entire Moon venture abandoned.

Mars has bacteria there, lots of it. We already know that.
We don't need to completely waste the next /half century/
to see exactly ....what kind....of bacteria lives on Mars.

Not when we could be using the new hardware to launch
a project that has endless benefits to us and our future.
Something more like this.

Space Solar Power home.
http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/

In half a century Nasa could transform America into
the world's largest energy /supplier/ instead of consumer.
In half a century our electricity could rain from the sky
as our cable signals do now.

In half a century Nasa could remake the entire future of
this planet from one of constant wars over resources and
diminishing living standards. To a future of almost unlimited
energy, peace and prosperity.

We are about to make one of the most important decisions in
the history of the human race. Is our future to look like
"Escape from New York" or "Star Trek"?

This decision must be made by the people this time.
Not by nameless generals and greedy contractors
in smoke-filled rooms.

These 'leaders' are about to ****-up the future of this planet.
We cannot let that happen. Anyone that truly cares about
America, our future and this planet must say no.......
....To the Moon and Mars.

And YES to a Nasa goal that does SOMETHING MEANINGFUL
for us and our future this time.




Jonathan

s













Ray
"Douglas Holmes" wrote in message
news:WRr2f.11209$Tn5.9001@trnddc08...
Just found an article on Marstoday.
Only time to scan it but it looks like a good breakdown of the
architecture.

http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069

also pay close attention to this image:

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/nas.esas.16.l.jpg

Note that almost all are well under 20,000 kgs.

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Ray" wrote in message
news:B6w2f.759$t43.433@trndny02...
I have a question about the article below. At the end of the article
the author says that congress didn't give their support to ESAS yet. I
thought they did and if not when will they meet to make a decision on
whether to support ESAS or not?



It's never too late to stop a mistake. We're going to the moon
so we can go to Mars. So the question becomes why go to Mars?
Without answering that question there can be no justification
for going to the Moon. If the answer is so we can then go
to someplace else, then the whole charade is exposed.

This is simply a 'vision' intended to generate endless missions.
Intended only to benefit Nasa, not us here on earth.

As such this goal is devoid of any meaning, benefits or justification.
Nasa is exploiting the taxpayer, not space with this goal.
I intend to stir up as much crap as I can in the coming weeks
to get the entire Moon venture abandoned.

Mars has bacteria there, lots of it. We already know that.
We don't need to completely waste the next /half century/
to see exactly ....what kind....of bacteria lives on Mars.

Not when we could be using the new hardware to launch
a project that has endless benefits to us and our future.
Something more like this.

Space Solar Power home.
http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/

In half a century Nasa could transform America into
the world's largest energy /supplier/ instead of consumer.
In half a century our electricity could rain from the sky
as our cable signals do now.

In half a century Nasa could remake the entire future of
this planet from one of constant wars over resources and
diminishing living standards. To a future of almost unlimited
energy, peace and prosperity.

We are about to make one of the most important decisions in
the history of the human race. Is our future to look like
"Escape from New York" or "Star Trek"?

This decision must be made by the people this time.
Not by nameless generals and greedy contractors
in smoke-filled rooms.

These 'leaders' are about to ****-up the future of this planet.
We cannot let that happen. Anyone that truly cares about
America, our future and this planet must say no.......
....To the Moon and Mars.

And YES to a Nasa goal that does SOMETHING MEANINGFUL
for us and our future this time.




Jonathan

s













Ray
"Douglas Holmes" wrote in message
news:WRr2f.11209$Tn5.9001@trnddc08...
Just found an article on Marstoday.
Only time to scan it but it looks like a good breakdown of the
architecture.

http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069

also pay close attention to this image:

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2005/nas.esas.16.l.jpg

Note that almost all are well under 20,000 kgs.




I am not against space power stations, but that is something that
private industry should do not NASA. NASA should focus on two things,
keeping humans in space for longer and longer periods of time and putting
humans farther and farther out into space. That's why space stations and
missions to the moon, mars and beyond are not a waist of money. Humans need
to learn to survive for longer and longer periods in space, and humans need
to learn to survive farther and farther out in space creating their own
environments. This is very important to openening the space frontier.

Ray

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

Anyone that truly cares about
America, our future and this planet must say no.......
....To the Moon and Mars.

And YES to a Nasa goal that does SOMETHING MEANINGFUL
for us and our future this time.

If it were a choice between moon/Mars and a major SPS program, I would
certainly vote for SPS, since I'm certain that in a world of routine SPS
construction, even the National Geographic Society could send an expedition
to Mars.

But I don't think that's the choice before us. I think the choice is
between moon/Mars and shutting down the manned portion of our space program.
Given those two choices, watch me lead cheers for moon/Mars, even though I
actually have very little interest in Mars.

Look at it this way: In the course of pursuing this goal, a lot of hardware
and infrastructure is going to be developed which might have other uses
later on. Note that with this one launch vehicle design with the stretched
ET tank we are finally going to have the long-desired HLLV. Consider that
if building SPS, the best source for the raw materials might be the moon.
And getting people back to the moon is at least the first step in perhaps
later setting up a base and mining camp.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

"Ray" wrote in message
news:CRN2f.3802$vi2.595@trndny04...

I am not against space power stations, but that is something that
private industry should do not NASA.

Ultimately, I agree, but it might not be entirely out of line for the US
government to build the first demonstrator prototype. It would be tax money
well-spent if it encouraged private firms to go on to create an entirely new
growth industry for the US.

But I certainly agree with your other points. The justification for sending
people into space is to prove that we can. One either views this as a
needed and valuable skill set, or one doesn't.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.