Going to the moon...again?

I was around the first time the US sent men to the moon. About the time
of the first landing, the movie 2001 came out. That was how it was going
to be 30 years hence, and the first steps on the moon proved that man
was on his way.

Well, it didn't work out that way. After the moon landings stopped, we
got the shuttle. Budget cuts and strange design decisions meant that it
was launched on a pair of fireworks. Light the blue touch paper and hope
everything works, because they can't be shut down.

One hundred launches later there have been two major accidents. Both
attributable in the first instance to technical problems, but at the end
of the day NASA's management had to take the real blame, because like
managers everywhere, they got complacent.

2001 has come and gone. There is no moon base, no regular flights to the
moon, and reaching orbit is still so dangerous that austronauts are only
asked to do it a few times in their career.

And now there's talk of returning to the moon. Not 2001 style, but by
resurrecting 1960's style throwaway technology. I've even seen arguments
that it was safe, based on the 10/10 success rate (ignore Apollo 13,
nobody actually died). The space shuttle did a lot better than
that...until Challenger.

At least I'm not a US tax payer. Going back to the moon in disposable
rockets is not an advance. It's just a waste of money. If that's the
best on offer, then better not to do it at all.

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message ...

At least I'm not a US tax payer. Going back to the moon in disposable
rockets is not an advance. It's just a waste of money. If that's the
best on offer, then better not to do it at all.

The Shuttle is also launched on disposable rockets. Reusing them was
an original idea, but it proved to be too dangerous. And then there
was the tank that might have been used for something else once in orbit
but never was.

Until rocket planes, space elevators, or mass driver cannons become a
reality it'll always be disposable rockets for the stretch between sur-
face and LEO. Which isn't so bad--we drink soda from throw-away cans,
after all. They'd be cheap enough and safe enough if they were mass-
produced...

Cislunar and interplanetary traffic is another ballpark, however. Re-
usable shuttles traversing those distances would make economic sense--
provided we found resources and ways to refuel them in space.



--
__ "A good leader knows when it's best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture." '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

Ool wrote:
Until rocket planes, space elevators, or mass driver cannons become a
reality it'll always be disposable rockets for the stretch between sur-
face and LEO. Which isn't so bad--we drink soda from throw-away cans,
after all. They'd be cheap enough and safe enough if they were mass-
produced...

I'm not so sure. Commercial airliners are mass produced, but they're
still hellishly expensive.

Over the last 20 years or so, an awful lot of money has been spent on
just operating the shuttles. A similarly huge amount could be spent just
going to the moon.

I can't help feeling that that money could be better spent researching
cheaper and safer ways of doing it. But of course, we know the reason
things operate as they do: politics.

Sylvia

"Ool" wrote in message
...
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...

At least I'm not a US tax payer. Going back to the moon in disposable
rockets is not an advance. It's just a waste of money. If that's the
best on offer, then better not to do it at all.

The Shuttle is also launched on disposable rockets. Reusing them was
an original idea, but it proved to be too dangerous. And then there
was the tank that might have been used for something else once in orbit
but never was.

Umm, the SRBs ARE re-used. The only thing that isn't is the ET.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message ...
"Ool" wrote in message
...
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...

At least I'm not a US tax payer. Going back to the moon in disposable
rockets is not an advance. It's just a waste of money. If that's the
best on offer, then better not to do it at all.

The Shuttle is also launched on disposable rockets. Reusing them was
an original idea, but it proved to be too dangerous. And then there
was the tank that might have been used for something else once in orbit
but never was.

Umm, the SRBs ARE re-used. The only thing that isn't is the ET.

Really? I've heard that was the plan but the drop in the ocean bent
them too much out of shape to be reusable. Someone please correct me
if I'm wrong! Was a pair ever reused for various flights?


Well, I just looked it up and it says that "they require extensive re-
work, so classifying them as reusable is questionable." Just how much
rework was that, how many times was it done before they were eventual-
ly scrapped, and how does it compare in costs to just building new
ones every time?

How many missions had the pair carried up that broke up during the
Challenger disaster?


--
__ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.� '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

"Ool" wrote in message news:c0im31$ft8$01

Really? I've heard that was the plan but the drop in the ocean bent
them too much out of shape to be reusable. Someone please correct me
if I'm wrong! Was a pair ever reused for various flights?

Well, I just looked it up and it says that "they require extensive re-
work, so classifying them as reusable is questionable." Just how much
rework was that, how many times was it done before they were eventual-
ly scrapped, and how does it compare in costs to just building new
ones every time?

They require "processing", just like the SSMEs, and everything else
associated with the STS. This is one reason why I wonder if there are some
things that are best left expendable for some items, given our current
technology. In any case, keep in mind that the SRBs are 225/226
historically, FWIW.

Jon

February 13, 2004

Ool wrote:

The Shuttle is also launched on disposable rockets.

What 'disposable rockets' would those be, specifically?

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

In article ,
Sylvia Else wrote:

Over the last 20 years or so, an awful lot of money has been spent on
just operating the shuttles.

Too true. Thank goodness that's almost over.

A similarly huge amount could be spent just going to the moon.

"Just going to the Moon"?!? That's sort of like "just winning the
lottery" or "just sleeping with Catherine Zeta-Jones" (if you're into
that sort of thing). Going to the Moon is what it's all about. It's
what we need to do. It's the next step in becoming a spacefaring
civilization.

Of course, this is true if it's not just *going* to the Moon, but
staying on the Moon for extended periods of time, which is what we
didn't do before and will be doing now, according to the plan.

Yes, we should have done this thirty years ago, but we built the Shuttle
instead. Fine, huge mistake, let's get over it and move on. Better
late than never, eh?

I can't help feeling that that money could be better spent researching
cheaper and safer ways of doing it.

That's the kind of thinking that led to the Shuttle, and look where it
got us.

You want cheaper and safer ways of doing it? Here's how you get that:
by doing it. A lot. Involving a lot of different companies. High
flight rate and competition will drive the costs down. Money spent on
research almost certainly will not.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

February 13, 2004

Ool wrote:

Umm, the SRBs ARE re-used. The only thing that isn't is the ET.

Really? I've heard that was the plan but the drop in the ocean bent
them too much out of shape to be reusable.

You heard wrong.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!

You're wrong.

Was a pair ever reused for various flights?

Yes.

Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net

Joe Strout wrote:
You want cheaper and safer ways of doing it? Here's how you get that:
by doing it. A lot. Involving a lot of different companies. High
flight rate and competition will drive the costs down. Money spent on
research almost certainly will not.

The problem from my perspective is that a way of getting to the moon
will be developed (again!), and then over a period of time, money will
be spent on refining it. We end up with the best horse and cart that
money can buy, but what we wanted was a supersonic airliner.

It's only be spending money on research that people get the chance to
start again with a blank sheet of paper.

Sylvia.