A BETTER way of retruning to the moon!

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

R1

Guest
Here is a picture of a Centaur configuration:



[(sorry) I hope the pics and diagrams don't hurt; I think it helps many of us who are not rocket scientists understand
the discussion better. ]

and according to wiki article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centaur_(rocket_stage) ,

A Centaur has also been proposed as an upper stage for the proposed Ares-V alternative, the Jupiter-232. It would be used on the Jupiter until the J-2X upper stage engine became available.
 
R

R1

Guest
So it sounds to me like they want to remove the shuttle from the liquid tank, and instead, put a
Centaur rocket on top of the liquid tank, right ?
 
J

jimglenn

Guest
Dunno, it would be hard to mount things to the tank, dangerous. I think they are talking about
other boosters.

Nice colored pic, but wake up, the Sea Launch Zenit rocket carries as much weight as da shuttle.

Retire that dino, flying brick, Greyhound bus already. Before it falls apart again.

Would you fly on a solid rocket.. :?: Not me. Liquid or hybrid only, dude. :ugeek:
 
V

vladdrac

Guest
Just Dreaming: Inflate something in orbit, spherical or cylindrical. Make it of a material able to withstand having metal 'vapour deposited' over its entire surface. :)
 
R

R1

Guest



...the test stand for the J2x engine is not even going to be completed until 2011.
(Recent article about this, the 'A-3 Test Stand': ) http://www.sunherald.com/201/story/1375922.html

They are building it to withstand 1,000,000 pounds of thrust, for even more powerful engines. The J2x appears to be
expected to produce less than 294,000 punds of thrust.

[ Do we not have another place to test the J2x? Could they not have built a smaller one, so that we can test at least the J2x's (now)? ]
 
R

R1

Guest
It is starting to remind me of DOD planes, ships and subs.
I hope they don't figure out in 2011 that a new, J6 engine has been invemted and that we need a new stand just to test it.
 
R

R1

Guest
Two Florida lawmakers lobby for NASA bucks
Some members of Congress, however, don’t want to fully fund the development of NASA’s next rocket program, called Constellation, until the panel delivers its findings later this summer.

Last week, the chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee of Commerce, Justice and Science proposed that NASA receive about $3.3 billion in 2010 for the development of its new rocket system -- nearly $700 million less than what Obama wanted in his budget outline for next year.
from this article here:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/2009/06/two-florida-lawmakers-lobby-for-nasa-bucks.html


The time is soon, to find the best way of returning to the moon, it seems.
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Something Ironic here. The original large test stand at the Santa Susana Field Test Laboratory called COCO was built as a test stand to test the five original J2 engines for the second stage of the Saturn V. It was built to easily stand 1,000,000 pounds of thrust (which it easily did without any failures in testing those five 200k class original J2's), and quite possibly even more! Further, it is not as if it was immediately torn down after the Apollo project, as it was also later used in testing the 500,000 pound thrust SSME! But I imagine that it has now been torn down, just like everything else that was done back in that decade of great dreams!

Pity for the taxpayers, that now have to pay for it all over again!

I have always been a supporter of NASA, but I must reluctantly now admit that perhaps that support has been misplaced. Perhaps it now would be better if that funding was taken away from the bureaucrats and bean counters of NASA and just given to the engineers of such as Elon Musk's spacex, Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites, and Robert Bigelow's, Bigelow Aerospace! Heck, I have long since come to the conclusion that even the melding of Boeing and LM in United Launch Alliance (ULA) would be far better than NASA itself!

I would imagine that the greatest of the rocket engineers in Von Braun would be turning over in his grave now to see the mess that NASA has made of things. Especially as the very idea of using solid rockets to launch human beings was an anathema to him! Even all the original early designs for the STS system and therefore the shuttle were all full TSTO designs with no such solids! As for the "Stick", well......

Pity..... The Saddest words in the English language are said to be "What might have been!"
 
L

LogicianSolutions

Guest
jimglenn, asking us to fix everything in the world before we do something with NASA is asking us not to do anything with NASA. The USA's wealth comes mainly from it's technologies. Like people from NASA have said, investing in NASA insures the wealth of America, (they forgot to mention since the military has a bigger R&D our wealth comes mainly from their declassified technologies). So if you want to insure our economy is fixed you should demand the government first invests in it's branches that actually develop new technologies. If you want more money for those "welfare slobs" then you should demand the government to invest in the military and NASA. If you want those drugies to have government funded rehab centers and group homes, you need to have your government to invest in it's military tech and space tech. Basically in this modern world, if you want huge sums of money, you want to develop the technologies Americans and the whole world will want to use.

As to the space plane? Until we the people demand it, the USA willn't invest in making a decent one for another 50 years or until a foreign power begins building one. I say this because currently politicians and the media have done a good job getting people to react out of emotions instead of logic. Remember logic comes from our higher brain.

I could explain why this is, but get paid when I do others thinking for them.
 
R

R1

Guest
A less expensive design is once again in the news.
According to this article, it will be possible to return to the the moon with less money, using much of the current
designs and/or technology. From here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/05/MN2218GD18.DTL&type=science


..the following:

Officially, the space agency is still on track with a 4-year-old plan to spend $35 billion to build new rockets and return astronauts to the moon in several years. However, a top NASA manager is floating a cut-rate alternative that costs around $6.6 billion.

This cheaper option is not as powerful as NASA's current design with its fancy new rockets, the people-carrying Ares I and cargo-lifting Ares V. But the cut-rate plan would still get to the moon.

The new model calls for flying lunar vehicles on something very familiar-looking - the old space shuttle system with its gigantic orange fuel tank and twin solid-rocket boosters, minus the shuttle itself. There are two new vehicles this rocket would carry - one generic cargo container, the other an Apollo-like capsule for astronaut travel. Those new vehicles could both go to the moon or the international space station.
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
I also commented on another of my started threads on this type of discussion, but I will also do so here! The answer to this new NASA proposal is a resounding YES, at least from myself!

While this may to some extent not follow my own total ideas for going back to the moon, it IS still the best idea to come out of NASA in a long time! And eventually, it actually would make getting to a high LEO orbit for starting a transfer space station also far easier and less expensive!

IN fact, it would allow NASA to not only get back to the moon using just the current shuttle technology (and it also may modify, but still uses the basic ideas of the Direct people also, which should then give it their support), but it would also allow NASA to keep the shuttles flying at a reduced rate, and still allow the US to get back to the moon in a far easier, safer, and even faster manner then the current over blown methodology of the Constellation project!

And I do think from the comments of such as Augustine, that THIS is absolutely going to be the recommendation of the new oversight committee! And will even impress Congress, with its ability to not only keep the shuttles flying (at only three per year, as that is all that should be needed for the ISS) until this new system is operational with the dragon capsules ability to keep sending all six people up to the ISS at the same time! And at the same time still go back to the moon, without a large increase (or perhaps no increase at all) in NASA's funding. This would be especially helpful to the politicians at this critical time in our economies problems!

The only possible fly in the ointment that I can see is the simple question that I can see Congress asking NASA. That question being, just why was this not thought of all along?

But I do not think that this question would be a show stopper anyway!

VERY GLAD, to see NASA finally coming around to the same kind of thinking that others have been doing here all along!!

Wonderful, simply wonderful!!! :D :D :D
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Sorry, I may have had the URLs confused!

Here is the one I commented on on M&L:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_ ... FuYWdlcnA-

Another interesting thing about this idea is that it goes back to what many of us originally supported NASA on for what we thought the Constellation project was originally going to be anyway! That is, before NASA started to play around with it, and ruin it!
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Sorry, I may have had the URLs confused!

Here is the one I commented on on M&L:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_ ... FuYWdlcnA-

Another interesting thing about this idea is that it goes back to what many of us originally supported NASA on for what we thought the Constellation project was originally going to be anyway! That is, before NASA started to play around with it, and ruin it!

Stupid internet anyway!

Try this one, I don't think the other one works anymore (it still worked on the other forum, but I could not get it to translate to here correctly).

Try this instead:

TinyURL:
http://tinyurl.com/m7t767

Hopefully, that works!!
 
R

R1

Guest
Ok, the tiny URL does work.

From the article:

The Shannon plan — called the Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle — would only be able to carry two astronauts at a time instead of three or four. That might mean less of a moon base, Shannon said.

Whatever the final plan, Shannon said it all comes down to this: "I would like us to be in the lunar business."

This may not seem good, but after I thought about it, I really do not think it will make the moon-base any less formidable.
Sending 2 astronauts instead of 4 may not be a problem after all. Think about it, other countries are also on the
verge of manned lunar missions. Humans from all over the world will start knocking on the lunar base doors before too long.
:D
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
In fact, doing this so much more inexpensively could be the key to even getting the pure private capitalistic interests involved!

I have even heard of NASA estimates that the current plan could cost as much as some $200 billion over the next 20 years or so (or some $10 billion per year on the average). And Congress is absolutely NOT going to go along with anything near that kind of funding just to go back to the moon! And the current administration seems to be far more aware of this then the last one was!!

I would rather see us do the possible, than to fail at the impossible, ANY time!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY