NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

in article , Joe Strout at
wrote on 9/20/05 8:10 AM:

In article p9TXe.8506$i86.1501@trndny01, "Ray"
wrote:

That makes no sense. You have a spacecraft designed to operate
outside of earth orbit, you make a few flights to the moon and then cancel
the program? No.

If you can't be bothered to read history, at least watch it on the
History Channel. You're embarrassing yourself.

Or it could be the other way around. This time we don't have to slow down in
order to not embarrass the Soviet Union.

George Evans

in article , Cardman at
wrote on 9/20/05 10:07 AM:

snip

The last I heard was that their SDHLV could put 14 tons directly on the Moon.
They could easily put much more mass into LEO, then to launch the required
fuel on a second launch.

The only issue here is in trying to cram things like a bulldozer into the
smaller payload fairing. Still, they could always send up the parts to have
this later assembled on the Moon.

Seems like a good idea to me for NASA to build a fuel station in LEO, on the
right orbit to later head on to the Moon. As then this fuel would be already
waiting before they launched their main missions, where they can top up their
fuel reserves as needed.

You can include some simple life support here to keep things flexible and
safe.

A cargo delivery CEV to operate between Earth and Lunar orbit is also an idea,
when to minimise costs and complexity, then you do not want to launch more
than big dumb cargo canisters.

The only issue is in servicing your CEV, where avoiding bringing this back to
Earth saves the heat shield mass. And to allow for the lifeboat option, then
you can just use two CEVs end to end.

Better yet remove the human aspect fully and just have an automated system do
this round trip, again, and again, and again. That way you can just have your
humans working on either end, with the more rare trip between the two.

This plan would mostly swap the SDHLV for a LEO Fuel Station. So the cost
would be slightly cheaper to build, and a lot cheaper to operate.

Are you sure NASA has ruled these ideas out? I read the following on p. 21
of the CAIB report:

"NASA centered its post-Apollo plans on developing increasingly larger
outposts in Earth orbit that would be launched atop Apollo's immense Saturn
V booster. The space agency hoped to construct a 12-person space station by
1975; subsequent stations would support 50,then 100 people. Other stations
would be placed in orbit around the moon and then be constructed on the
lunar surface. In parallel, NASA would develop the capability for the manned
exploration of Mars."

NASA had, by this time, apparently seen the wisdom of separating crew launch
from heavy cargo launch.

snip

George Evans

in article , John Doe at wrote on
9/20/05 12:57 PM:

Ray wrote:

snip

And do what with the CEV? Operate it in orbit only? No.

Where else do you want it to go ? Jupiter ? The CEV is just a glorified
Apollo with more people in it. Nothing more. It is unsuitable to go to
Mars. In fact, if there isn't room for proper exercise equipment, I
wonder if it is suitable for 2 weeks trips. They put the exercise
equipment in the shuttle for a good reason.

By itself it is unsuitable to go to Mars, but it is very suitable to dock to
a large Mars bound spacecraft constructed in LEO.

snip

George Evans

in article , John Doe at wrote on
9/20/05 1:20 PM:

George Evans wrote:

I like the emphasis on the Moon. As a science teacher in the US, I am
dismayed that some college aged students don't think we ever got there. I
know this is fantasy, but I would love to see some type of activity on the
Moon, maybe a large mining operation, that would be visible in amateur
telescopes. What a visual aid!

What is more likely is that McDonalds, Coke or Pepsi will fund a flight
to Moon whose purpose will be to unfurl a HUGE banner with their logo on
it, so all kids who look at the moon with a telescope will be able to
see that logo FOREVER.

Until the private sector companies get launch costs down, no Earth based
company will be able to afford such a thing.

Since very litle of what will be done to go to Moon will be of use to go
to mars, the trips to the moon are a diversion. If mankind is to advance
exploration of space, it should be working on a mars mission. Unless you
work on it, you won't develop what is needed to get there and back.

Your statement is true if missions to Mars originate on Earth. OTOH if
vehicles can be constructed and launched from the Moon, then these Moon
missions are very important.

George Evans

in article , Rand Simberg at
h wrote on 9/20/05 5:36 PM:

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:20:06 GMT, in a place far, far away, George
Evans made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

What *real* evidence do you have for this claim that commercial providers
could do the same for less? What commercial provider has produced a man rated
launcher?

What government provider has, recently? Do you even know what the phrase "man
rating" means?

No, I don't know precisely what man rating means, but I think I heard the
FAA was involved and it has to do with a stack of hardware and explosives
with one or more "men" sitting on top.

Assuming that China and Russia care roughly the same as the US does about
"men", the score is now 3 countries to 0 companies.

George Evans

in article Kg3Ye.8546$T55.1554@trndny06, Ray at wrote
on 9/20/05 7:08 PM:

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

"Ray" wrote in message
news:J6KXe.15619$Zg5.1847@trndny05...

I am extremely excited about this plan! I have a question for you. What
else should NASA do? Personally, I rather get rid of NASA instead of
letting it orbit humans around the earth forever wasting our tax money. If
we are going to have manned spaceflight we need to be serious about it and
explore space, moon, mars and beyond, with people not just some dam robots.
Somebody mentioned something on these newsgroups once about NASA working
with energy. That's bull****. We have a dept or energy for that. NASA
exists to do flight in space mostly.

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. Shuttle wasn't sustainable in part due to
high costs. What makes anyone think that the Stick and the SDHLV will be
sustainable?

I really don't think its NASA's job to concentrate on lowering launch costs
really. That's private industries job. NASA's job is to goto the moon and
beyond

You took the words right out of my mouth, brother.

George Evans

in article , Jorge R. Frank at
wrote on 9/20/05 7:15 PM:

George Evans wrote in
:

in article , Jorge R. Frank at
wrote on 9/19/05 9:43 PM:

Reed Snellenberger wrote in
.119:

snip

and ultimately be more versatile than the orbiter.

In the sense that it can go to the moon, yes. For LEO missions, it's way
less versatile than the orbiter. In particular, "ISS assembly complete" is
about to be redefined as "whatever state the station happens to be in
whenever the shuttle stops flying, since there ain't no way CEV is going to
do any meaningful assembly."

Isn't it possible for ISS to do some unassisted assembly now that it has its
own remote manipulator?

No. You have to perform rendezvous and prox ops to get the modules within the
capture envelope of the manipulator. ISS can't do that, and neither can the
modules. So you have to have some sort of third vehicle - either a modified
CEV or a space tug launched with the modules - to perform that go- between
function.

As it is, CEV won't be available until 2012, and the baseline design won't be
capable of carrying modules to ISS.

Thanks for the clarification.

George Evans

in article , Joe Strout at
wrote on 9/20/05 7:42 PM:

In article 4d3Ye.8545$T55.1030@trndny06, "Ray"
wrote:

I have question about all this. Many you seem to be anti-NASA and
anti moon, mars and beyond because you suspect its all bull ****. NASA did
a study on moon, mars and beyond before they presented it to the President
and Congress. If moon, mars and beyond was not workable with the budget
they receive, I don't think they would have presented to the President and
Congress, and I don't think the government would have agreed to it.

You're new, aren't you? Missed out on previous experience with Apollo,
Shuttle, and ISS, to name a few?

Please note that Joe only lists US lead programs thus revealing a leftist
bias. A lot of these guys just don't want the USA to succeed. Not all, but
most.

George Evans

George Evans wrote:
in article , Paul F. Dietz at
wrote on 9/20/05 7:28 PM:

snip

History shows manned space programs decline in popularity with time, btw.
It happened to Apollo, and Shuttle, and ISS, and to the Russian space
program.


Everything declines in interest with time. How many people care about
robotic exploration of space? How many people get worked up about highway
systems? But that doesn't mean the people don't want highways anymore.

But it does mean the point I was responding to, which you so helpfully
deleted, is contrary to the historical evidence.

Paul

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 08:32:44 GMT, in a place far, far away, George
Evans made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

What *real* evidence do you have for this claim that commercial providers
could do the same for less? What commercial provider has produced a man rated
launcher?

What government provider has, recently? Do you even know what the phrase "man
rating" means?

No, I don't know precisely what man rating means, but I think I heard the
FAA was involved and it has to do with a stack of hardware and explosives
with one or more "men" sitting on top.

In other words, you (like most people who throw the phrase around as
though they know what they're talking about) know nothing about what
it means, or whether or not it's even necessary...

Assuming that China and Russia care roughly the same as the US does about
"men", the score is now 3 countries to 0 companies.

There has been no man-rated rocket developed since the sixties.
Shuttle is not man rated. Burt Rutan's vehicles, however, as will
Jeff Bezos' and John Carmack's, and Rocketplanes, will be designed to
carry passengers, as SpaceShipOne was.