NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

"Ray" wrote in message
news:Ul3Ye.8932$i86.4776@trndny01...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Ray" wrote in message
news:22LXe.7296$i86.3182@trndny01...

I like what you said below, but I actually like a big CEV in orbit.
The
astronauts deserve a roomy CEV. By the way, do you know the dimensions
of
the CEV or where I could find that information? Will the CEV be as big
as
the shuttle crew cabin or smaller?

The astronauts deserve it? That's hardly justification to spend about
$10
billion to develop the CEV and the stick.

For space exploration, its worth it.

It's your opinion that for the cost, it's worth it. That's not my opinion.
Remember that the astronauts will only ride in the CEV for a few days.
They'll spend most of their time (up to six months) on the lunar surface.
Extra space on the CEV could be justified by many things, but crew comfort
isn't one of them that I think is valid.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:17:30 -0400, in a place far, far away, "S.
Wand" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
Really? What existing launchers would be cheaper than SDHLV? $500 mil
/
250Klb gets you $2000/lb to LEO.

Where do you get half a billion per flight?

No kidding. If NASA launches two lunar missions per year (that's what they
seem to have baselined), then where are they hiding the high fixed costs of
the infrastructure to support those launches?

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Michael Rhino" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...


NASA could focus on the real problem, which is high launch costs. For
the
$7 billion a year this program is going to cost, they could fund dozens
of
X-vehicle programs, each aimed at one aspect of lowering launch costs.
The
results of these programs would be public knowledge, useable by both the
established launch companies, and the startups.

Certainly this would delay our return to the moon, but it would make the
return to the moon far more affordable and sustainable. Apollo wasn't
sustainable due to high costs.

Apollo was sustainable, but someone chose not to.

Apollo was not sustainable because it was deemed too expensive. Once it
became clear we were going to beat the "Godless Communists" to the moon,
NASA wasn't quite the high priority it once was. Since the race to the moon
was won, and since the cold war has ended, there is no reason to believe
that NASA will ever be funded at the same levels it was at the peak of the
Apollo program.

Apollo was replaced by
the Shuttle which was also expensive. The shuttle was sustained for 20
years which is a fairly long time. One shouldn't expect programs to be
sustained forever.

While this is true, it's also true that none of the orbiter airframes will
ever come close to their intended 100 flight lifetime. Ending the program
due to safety concerns is only part of the reason the program will end in
2010. The biggest reason it will end is because it's far too expensive of a
launch vehicle to support the moon/mars initiative. The SDHLV will improve
on that, but only somewhat. Certainly the SDHLV will launch far more than
the shuttle, but its flight rate is baselined at two per year (in order to
support the baseline of two manned lunar missions per year). So its fixed
costs will be spread out over fewer flights than the shuttle.

Griffin keeps saying this will be a "pay as you go" program, but the high
fixed costs of the stick, the SDHLV, and the CEV will be nearly as much as
the shuttle program (much of the same components are there), leaving little
room for cost savings by canceling flights. The landers strike me as being
about as expensive as ISS to continuously build and fly, especially if
NASA's intent is to start building lunar bases using the lunar landers left
on the moon as the building blocks. If that happens, the landers will start
looking more like ISS modules (in terms of the equipment they have on board)
and less like a LEM on steroids.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Give me some good reasons for abandoning the Saturns.

High cost killed the Saturns. Their production run was capped during Apollo
and it was never restarted. Several lunar landing missions were cancelled
due to cost. Some of the surplus Saturns that were freed up as a result
were used for Skylab and ASTP. The others are museum pieces or were
scrapped.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

On 19 Sep 2005 15:12:26 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:


wrote:
The bottom line is : let s give back to NASA in 2018 the capabilities
it had in 1972.

Not quite. In 1972 NASA could do a moon landing with a single launch.
The new scheme will require two launches of two different, specially
designed rockets.

This should provide good employment opportunities for rocket designers.

I think they said something about needing a vehicle that can take
crews to the space station. Safety concerns may also have played a
role.

--
Josh

"This is a devastating storm. This is a storm that's
going to require immediate action now." -George W. Bush,
four days after Hurricane Katrina

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:49:16 GMT, "Ray" wrote:


"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...
The bottom line is : let s give back to NASA in 2018 the capabilities
it had in 1972.

And cost more money and time to do it. :-(

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.


It doesn't cost more money than Apollo. This will cost 55% of
Apollo, and well worth it.

Which makes me kind of suspicious about the number . . .

--
Josh

"This is a devastating storm. This is a storm that's
going to require immediate action now." -George W. Bush,
four days after Hurricane Katrina

On 21 Sep 2005 06:01:15 -0700, wrote:

Give me some good reasons for abandoning the Saturns. Bear in mind that
in the late '60s NASA was hoping to have the both the Saturn system and
Space Shuttle as operational vehicles through the 70's and 80's.

I'm still not sure why everyone is griping and moaning on this NG about
the new plan. After 30+ years of Earth orbit operations, NASA finally
has the marching orders to continue human lunar exploration. Yes it
seems like Apollo redux, but is that necessarily a bad thing? I don't
think so.

I don't think it's such a good thing. A lot of money that could be put
towards a more interesting objective like Mars.

OTOH, I think it's kind of unfair to blame today's NASA for having to
recreate the Apollo capability. They weren't the ones who ended Saturn
production or made the shuttle and ISS decisions -- they're the ones
who have to pay for those mistakes. Unwillingness to bite the bullet
is I suspect one of the reasons they kept the shuttle going for so
long. And thanks in part to treaty obligations, we're still in the
same boat with ISS.

--
Josh

"This is a devastating storm. This is a storm that's
going to require immediate action now." -George W. Bush,
four days after Hurricane Katrina

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:03:18 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On 21 Sep 2005 06:01:15 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Give me some good reasons for abandoning the Saturns.

They cost too much.

A lot less than the shuttle, and nobody was willing to finance a more
economical replacement . . .

--
Josh

"This is a devastating storm. This is a storm that's
going to require immediate action now." -George W. Bush,
four days after Hurricane Katrina

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 11:18:15 GMT, "Ray" wrote:


"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
roups.com...

Derek Lyons wrote:
wrote:
CEV recreates Apollo and Soyuz but bear in mind that Soyuz was the
Russian equivalent to Apollo.

Not really - Soyuz started out as an independent orbiter and became a
dedicated space taxi. Apollo started as a space taxi/general purpose
orbiter and became a dedicated long range/long duration lunar craft.

That's it! What's needed for ISS is a Space Taxi. The CEV is cruise
ship, and is an inherently expensive way to reach ISS.


A space taxi? Why so we can spend the next 30 years circling the
earth, circling the earth, circling the earth like we spent the previous 30
years. I think that will get the program canceled out of boredom. No, its
time to push ahead to moon, mars and beyond. If we can spend 84 billion
dollars for one year in Iraq and Afghanistan then we can spend 100 billion
dollars over 12 years getting ready to goto the moon..

Amen, if you make that Mars . . .

--
Josh

"This is a devastating storm. This is a storm that's
going to require immediate action now." -George W. Bush,
four days after Hurricane Katrina

Since "NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture", then
perhaps we village idiots can seriously discuss those potentially
lethal physical impacts, thermal issues, radioactive, reactive and
atmospheric environment about our moon that really sucks, especially by
day unless you're one hell of a robot.

It seems the status quo is entirely taboo/nondisclosure yet somehow
that's perfectly fine and dandy for the likes of "David Knisely",
whereas otherwise life involving the regular laws of physics and
hard-science that's the least bit outside the box is where pesky morals
or so much as having a stitch of remorse sucks because;
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...rm/thread/312=
c0ee1964db812/85e2050d1b0c9a78?rnum=3D11&hl=3Den&q=3Dbrad+guth&_ done=3D%2Fg=
roup%2Fsci.astro.amateur%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F3 12c0ee1964db812%2F8ee6a5d=
795a6cc43%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3Dbrad+guth%26rnum%3D7%26 hl%3Den%26#doc_abc3dca90e=
b703fc
There are some posters out there
who feel the need to formulate
their own elaborate theories
about the heavens and their fate.
And otherwise lord/rusemaster David Knisely having contributed yet
another very nicely worded mainstream status quo rant, which is exactly
why such all-knowing folks as Knisely are not likely going to
contribute an honest need-to-know squat upon this next related
sub-topic as to the lunar atmosphere and subsequent environment.

The temperature on moon surface is what I believe can become moderated
to suit, at least on behalf of greatly improving the odds on behalf of
robotics that can be robust and thus engineered so as to not care about
their local thermal or radioactive background dosage environment nor of
whatever's incoming that's producing all of that truly nasty
secondary/recoil worth of hard-X-rays. However, with having such a
crystal clear layer of Radon plus another extended layer of Argon
should create quit a well insulated surface baking environment that's
capable of getting a damn site hotter than the sort of hell reported by
our cloak and dagger MI6/NSA~NASA Apollo spooks.

In spite of all the brown-nosed minions of their mainstream status quo
that thinks and/or keeps insisting at we village idiots should only
think that we've already done that and been there, thus why all of
their need-to-know and/or taboo/nondisclosure that sucks and blows at
the same time, which only seems rather out of proper form, especially
when it appears that building/terraforming an artificial lunar
atmosphere for robotics has been doable without our ever risking so
much as one TBI white hair upon another astronaut:

Not that I'm insisting this as the one and only alternative, however
for further sportmanship reasons I'm thinking that the likes of Radon
gas should become liquid at night and, otherwise expand out to perhaps
an atmospheric depth of a km by day. Topped off by mostly argon that
might reach as far as 50 km by day and something less than 10 km by
nighttime/earthshine.

According to Mike Williams;
"The strength of the surface gravity (1.623 m/s/s) isn't the critical
factor. What's more significant is the escape velocity (Moon 2.38km/s,
Titan 2.65km/s)."

"The heavier gas sticks around but the useful gas escapes. The various
types of molecules settle down to having the same average kinetic
energy,
but that means that the lighter molecules move faster than the heavier
ones. They move just as fast, in fact, as if the heavier molecules were

not present."

"There's a piece of JavaScript on this page
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html#c4
that will calculate the average molecular speed given the molecular
mass
and temperature. N2 molecules (m=3D28) on Titan (T=3D-197C) average 260m/s
which is about a tenth of the escape velocity. CO2 molecules (m=3D28) on
the Moon (daytime T=3D107C) average 464m/s which is about a fifth of the
escape velocity. That might sound OK, but not all molecules travel at
the average velocity, some travel faster and leak away. The Earth isn't
able to hold on to hydrogen molecules, and they average about a fifth
of
Earth's escape velocity."

"Radon atoms would travel at an average of 206m/s on the Moon, which
suggests that you could build an atmosphere of pure Radon."

Density of dry ice: anywhere from 1.2 to 1.6 kg/dm=B3 depends upon
compactness (avg 1.5 g/cm3)
Frozen solid form at -78.5=B0 C
Sublimes at anything much hoter than -78=B0C
In a snowball form of compactness upon the moon it may represent less
than 1 g/cm3.

Radon, Rn atomic number: 86
Atomic mass: [222] gmol-1(no stable nuclide)
Isotope: 222Rn (222.017570)
Specific gravity of the liquid state is 4.4 g/cm3 at -62=B0C, and SG of
the solid state becomes 4 g/cm3, thus 4 tonnes/m3 if frozen solid and
especially frozen solid if that Rn were sequestered by the likes of
frozen CO2 at 1.5 g/mm3.

A cubic meter of each substance, that which Earth needs to get rid of
anyway, represents a composite sphere of 5.5~5.9 tonnes, and that's not
actually all that large of diameter of what can be easily directed at
impacting (not orbiting) the moon. From the zero-G vantage point of
such being accelerated from the nullification zone of roughly 60,000 km
away from the moon gives an hour, in that there's an unobstructed path
of least resistance that'll also benefit from the 1.623 m/s/s worth of
gravity, whereas this should not require all that much added thrust
energy for getting the final velocity up to good speed of final impact
becoming worth at least 30 km/s (9 fold better KE bang/kg than DEEP
IMPACT), although what's stopping us from achieving 60+km/s?.

Our moon is already fairly radioactive by several fold greater than
Earth, thus another clue that our moon is actually that of an icy
proto-moon as having arrived instead of being ejected out of Earth,
that plus the much having lesser density makes a whole lot more sense
than any spendy computer model that's keeping the likes of a Pope and
other terrestrial or but religions as happy campers.

Of course, my lunar terraforming notions of artificially bombing the
holy crap out of our moon with the likes of large blocks or spheres of
dry-ice having frozen Rn within, besides creating whatever horrific
meteor like impacts worth of vaporising lunar basalt into capably
releasing a ratio of 1e6:1 worth of O2, the very nature of the
delivered CO2 might subsequently revert to just good old elements of
co/o2 or perhaps react into just C and O2, whereas the Radon element
should have vanished within a few days unless we'd replaced and/or
supplemented that lunar bombing of frozen Rn with the likes of
including Ra226 which might even react quite nicely with the already
available He3 into making a nifty long-term supply of creating Rn.
After the Ra226 is sufficiently depleted, say in 6400 years it should
be at 1/16th of it's initial potency, and by then having established a
good amount of terraformed atmosphere as becoming the case since the
amount of continual Radon-222 would have extensively moderated the
hot/cold of the lunar day/night differential to something quite
manageable for the likes of holding onto O2, whereas by then there
shouldn't be hardly any significant local radioactive threat for naked
humans that could be safely accommodated for 60 earthshine days upon
the surface of our moon, that which a reasonably engineered moonsuit
couldn't manage, or at least sufficient as for accommodating the likes
of whomever we don't want living here on Earth (I have a growing list
of whom those folks should be, roughly the bulk of the upper 0.1% of
humanity that have been pillaging and raping mother Earth while
continually snookering the lower 99.9% of humanity, and I do believe
there should be plenty of available space on and/or within the moon for
accommodating each and every one of those 15e6 folks in spite of all
the deployed Ra226 that upon average shouldn't have modified the
already background radioactive terrain by more than 10%).

According to the above "Molecular Speed Calculation" of Argon-40, even
if the elevated average altitude represented at worst 100=B0C (373K)
would give Argon the maximum RMS velocity of 482.4 m/s which obviously
should stick around. Even that of O2-32 only jumps to an RMS velocity
of 539 m/s which should also stay put at least up until a truly nasty
solar wind of 1200~2400 km/s excavates such lighter mass elements away.

So, you tell me why artificially bombing our moon, and especially with
the sorts of nasty stuff that Earth is getting more and more desperate
to get rid of isn't such a good idea.
So stick to just the cold hard facts
and do not engage these fools.
As time goes on, they should then fade
and prove that knowledge rules!
- D. Knisely
Obviously this nifty rant closing was speaking on behalf of warning us
about himself, as for our not bothering to engage such mainstream
rusemasters because, doing so will only bring us MOS LLPOF infomercials
and thus wasting human talents, resources of expertise and energy as
well as sustaining collateral damage and continued carnage of the
innocent.

BTW; just because certain folks fade is more than likely because
they're too smart to waste valuable time and resources upon the lost
cause of humanity that's ruled by and thereby performing as brown-nosed
minions to the upper most 0.1%, of which the likes of lord D. Knisely
is apparently even somewhat above that.
~

Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been
the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't
been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.