$10 billion rather than $104 billion to go to the moon?

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Rather than taking one craft to the surface that could fail as it almost did with Apollo, you have several.</font>/i><br /><br />The t/Space architecture includes travelling in pairs of CEVs to the Lunar surface (in their model, the CEV only travels between LEO and the Lunar surface -- it does not travel return to Earth's surface). If there is a problem with one CEV, the crew from the crippled one would transfer to the good one, and both crews would return in a single vehicle. It is the wagon train approach. Safety through redundancy.<br /><br />Regarding abandoning the abort directly to Earth, t/Space argues that there are not a lot of failure conditions where a spacecraft is so crippled that it can return to Earth but not perform aerobraking. Meanwhile, the ESAS introduces some additional failure modes.<br /><br />For example, suppose the Lunar liftoff stage of the ESAS cannot dock with the CEV in Lunar orbit. Can the Lunar liftoff stage return safely to the Lunar surface? Or suppose after docking with the CEV in Lunar orbit the astronauts discover something wrong with it and that it cannot return to Earth. Can they return to the Lunar surface? Or can they wait in the CEV for six months until the next Lunar mission?<br /><br />But the t/Space architecture, like the SpaceDev architecture, is focused only on going to the Moon.<br /><br />PS. As far as I can tell, the SpaceDev architecture throws away as much as the ESAS architecture does.<br /><br />PSS. The ESAS architecture does not preclude using a Bigelow inflatable as a habitat that can left on the Moon and reprovisioned in subsequent missions. When Griffin unveiled the ESAS architecture, the Lunar lander was the least defined element of the mission. He described the images as "notional only".</i>

 

[john_316]

Ok folks by what I have seen hee thus far on these threads is some confusion and total skeptism on certain projects.<br /><br />Lets get some facts out in the open before we keep flaming each others views points and ideas.<br /><br />1.)The money is going ot be appropriated each year while president Bush is in office to the VSE and CEV/HLV. <br /><br />2.) To some of you digruntled shuttle technicians and engineers the Shuttle is going BYE BYE in the 2010 time frame. Get USED to it because it is happening. <br /><br />3.) The VSE was set up because the President and the present NASA director and recent former one (Mr. Okeefe) knew NASA is spending more money flying in circles than they are on ambitious projects. Wasting Tax Payers dollars.<br /><br />4.) A mission statement needed to be verified and supported and that support came when the President and the NASA director after the Columbia Accident realized that we have problems with the STS and we just can't throw money at it to fix it. And what are we actuallying doing in space at the moment for mankind.<br /><br />NASA has over the past 15 years scaled back its plans and visions because of a vast budgetary collamity. Overpriced projects that cost more in studies than they are to cut metal with is a black eye if you as me.<br /><br />How can you invest a billion dollars in a program that didn't even fly off the pad just to see if it worked? (Reference to X-33). Ths tells me that we spend more money paying these managers money than we do on actually doing the science and building it.<br /><br />NASA operations is like so: It sucks the gas from the gas truck before it reaches the pump.<br /><br />With some fiscal responsibility and new leadership and I think some more OVERSIGHT NASA can once again do what it hasn't done in over 20 years. Fly rocketships!<br /><br />I still can't fathom the idea that some of you believe that the SRB/CEV is going to cost 500 million to a billion per launch. It will cost that amount if we pay company X ma

 

[ragnorak]

<br />It is great to dream but I'm more interested in Spacedev's new engine for SpaceShipTwo. According to this guy at Virgin Galactic they need a new engine after problems with SpaceShipOne's.<br /><br />http://www.flightinternational.com/Articles/2005/11/15/202884/SS2+faces+major+design+decisions.html<br />

 

[nibb31]

In SpaceDev's animation, I don't understand the point of the final docking between the capsule and the mini-shuttle after the aerocapture phase. Why not just reenter with the capsule?<br /><br />Also, they have a nice animation of their cool mini-shuttle bringing the crew up to the Moon ship, but how did that huge thing get in orbit in the first place? Is it launched in one piece or assembled in orbit. Do they plan on building another HLV ? If that's the case, why fly the crew up on a winged vehicle.<br /><br />It looks like the space-plane steps are only for the pretty pictures. It seems to me that even more of the hardware is disposable than in the VSE plan, including lots of engines, power sources and electronics boxes that are duplicated on each of those small landers.

 

[nacnud]

Perhaps the idea is to reuse the arocapured vehicle? I presume the Moon stack was built up with many launches of the Dream Chaser launch vehicle.<br /><br />The space plane step does seem superfluous.<br />

 

[cuddlyrocket]

One of the problems with the Spacedev plan is that it relies on a number of novel steps that may very well be feasible, but have not actually been shown to work (e.g. aerocapture). This is risky when you don't have a fall-back position. If any part doesn't work, the whole plan is in the toilet.<br /><br />The advantage of NASA's plan is that it is an update of a plan that was shown to work. Once you have such a system, you can then develop it - perhaps on the lines that Spacedev suggests. You can try an aerocapture. You can try the rocket chair. If they work, great. If not, you continue with what you were doing.<br /><br />Not formally, but in practice, this is partly a sales document from SpaceDev, which should always put you on your guard. Their proposed savings need to be tested, and we should make sure they're not including everything for the NASA price tag (e.g. STS operations to retirement), and missing them out on their own comparison. (Sometimes this may be the fault of the reporting journalist.)

 

[frodo1008]

NASA is like the tortoise in "The tortoise and the hare", it IS indeed somewhat slow and even awkward and clumbsy, but IT WILL WORK AND GET YOU WHERE YOU WANT TO GO! NASA is the insurance policy of space that we the taxpayers of this greatest of nations is willing to pay for. It certainly isn't perfect, but it has the experience and people and facilities and contractors to do the job! At this point the start up companies quite frankly are a long way from having these items. Yes, spacedev has indeedd done some good and remarkable things, but these things are even quite a long way from even LEO let alone the moon! <br /><br />The future may very well see NASA itself buying transport services from such as spacedev, but for now each should concentrate on doing what each does best. That means going on to the moon for further exploration for NASA, and developing a paying sub-orbital tourist craft for spacedev!! <br /><br />I do NOT say they will not aquire them, but it IS going to take time and effort for them. In the meantime the insurance policy tortoise is going to plod along and got on to the moon with a system that we know at the very least works!<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

My general view of government programs is if you want to do something in the most expensive and least efficient way possible put the government in charge of it. However that has to be balanced against a fact of life, businesses exist for one reason, and one reason only, to make a profit. If some venture is not profitable then businesses will either avoid doing it or they will withdraw from that area, or they will go bankrupt. There are some things that need to be done and that will NOT and can NOT be done by private business, and no amount of wishful thinking by alt.space fans will alter that reality. This is why there will always be a need for some government programs like NASA.<br /><br />When the government first built Interstate 75 I could drive down it to Florida for long stretches without ever seeing a business. Now that road is lined with businesses almost all the way from Atlanta to the Florida state line. That government program created thousands of businesses. The ISS is going to create the possibility of private businesses servicing a space station. More NASA stations in orbit and a Moon Base would create more opportunities for businesses to get their foot in the door in the field of space just like that Interstate Highway created opportunities for businesses to come into existence.<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">businesses exist for one reason, and one reason only, to make a profit. If some venture is not profitable then businesses will either avoid doing it or they will withdraw from that area</font>/i><br /><br />Yep, that is pretty much right, and Griffin has mentioned the same thing on several occasions. It is especially true when you are spending someone else's money.<br /><br />The only thing I would inject is that we are entering a phase where a lot of geeks are becoming quite wealthy, and many may pursue efforts of the heart using their own money. Paul Allen, Jeff Bezos, and John Carmack come to mind. I am interested to see what Larry Page and Sergey Brin will do with their new found billions; they have expressed interest in space elevators in the past.</i>