ESAS Critics Beware: The Genius Of Dan Handlin!!!

[mattblack]

Dan Handlin's articles "Just Another Apollo", especially the second half, are works of concise genius, "IMHO".<br /><br />Enjoy:<br /><br />http://www.thespacereview.com/article/502/1<br /><br />http://www.thespacereview.com/article/507/1<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[n_kitson]

Um, his crediblity disappeared quickly when he started quoting Picard and Q.

 

[spacefire]

the VSE fails to deliver the spaceship that could. The VSE is now fundamentally different from what it was proposed initially. The VSE is a failure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

No mention of Picard according to my search. The reference to Q was a sarcastic dig at those who want to wait for more advanced technology before going back.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

The VSE doesn't even mention what kind of spaceship, it concentrates on goals in space. The ESAS is where the spaceship comes in, and it's a REAL spaceship instead of a glider that is impersonating a spaceship.<br /><br />This may shock you, but there is more to a mission than the last few minutes, and the capsule is by far the better design for 99.9% of the mission.<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The VSE is now fundamentally different from what it was proposed initially.</font>/i><br /><br />Huh? I don't understand this statement. How has the VSE changed?</i>

 

[robotical]

The second link contains a quote on the second page from Q. It's motivational in nature and doesn't contain anything scientific, nothing to dismiss the article over. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

Handlin's apologia of the ESAS architecture has gaping flaws related to misrepresentation of the specifications of the LSAM (the Lunar Surface Access Module).<br /><br />Nowhere can I find backing for Handlin's claim that the baseline LSAM can support 4 men for 6 months on the moon. Instead I find that the LSAM can support it's crew for 7 days. That's days not months. Check out the detailed article in spaceref.com for proof.<br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069 <br /><br />"One of the key differences is the lunar lander - the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) - and its capabilities. It will carry 4 astronauts to the lunar surface and can stay there for a week."

 

[dobbins]

From your link,<br /><br />However the 6 month lifetime needed for CEVs that visit and stay at the ISS "backed its way into lunar missions."<br /><br />From NASA's Fact Sheet.<br /><br />These first lunar missions will be short "seven-day" sorties.<br /><br />Note the use of the term "first" which restricts the 7 day limit to the earliest missions.<br /><br />Also from NASA's fact sheet,<br /><br />NASA will establish a lunar outpost, one mission at a time. Each Mission will enable longer stays.<br /><br />http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/133820main_ESAS_Facts.pdf<br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

the CEVs design and mission have been altered-that is curtailed-dramatically. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

" Our second goal is to develop and test a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission no later than 2014. The Crew Exploration Vehicle will be capable of ferrying astronauts and scientists to the Space Station after the shuttle is retired. But the main purpose of this spacecraft will be to carry astronauts beyond our orbit to other worlds. This will be the first spacecraft of its kind since the Apollo Command Module."<br /><br />From Bush's VSE speech.<br /><br />Just how is the CEV "curtailed-dramatically"?<br /><br />There is nothing in the VSE speech about space planes. The capsule design was on the table from day one for the studies about what the CEV would be, there was never any promises about yet another space plane.<br />

 

[krrr]

I don't see much of a genius in someone who's just repeating NASA's talking points. I'm not saying he's wrong but there's not a lot of originality in that article.<br /><br />Dismissing SEP as "immature technology" is rather disingenuous.

 

[josh_simonson]

SEP is immature as far as manned missions go. It's also never been deployed on a large scale as would be needed for pre-positioning provisions for a human mission.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">the CEVs design and mission have been altered-that is curtailed-dramatically.</font>/i><br /><br />I don't think there were any specifics given when the VSE was initially announced -- the VSE is "what" to do, not "how" to do it. In the document "The Vision for Space Exploration", February 2004, there was a very tiny image to represent the CEV in a timeline on pg. 14. For those interested, that tiny figure (attached below) looked like a capsule.</i>

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"SEP is immature as far as manned missions go. It's also never been deployed on a large scale as would be needed for pre-positioning provisions for a human mission."<br /><br />Yes, that's because NASA had to cancel all of the promising SEP, NEP and NTP research projects back in september to pay for accelerating ESAS.

 

[dobbins]

Excuse me? Are we supposed to do without any access to space for 10 or 15 years to work on some new system?<br /><br />I'm sorry I find that to be utterly unrealistic. The simple facts are that NASA has a limited budget and that it needs a new spacecraft to replace the Shuttle ASAP. The CEV is going to be an operational spaceship NOT an X-plane technology demonstrator. It needs proven workable technology. I wish we could do more research but that simply is not possible with the current workload and budget.<br /><br />

 

[mattblack]

He was being ironic. Jeez, where's your funnybone!?<br /><br />http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=irony<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"These first lunar missions will be short "seven-day" sorties." <br /><br />"Note the use of the term "first" which restricts the 7 day limit to the earliest missions." <br /><br />"Also from NASA's fact sheet,"<br /><br /> "NASA will establish a lunar outpost, one mission at a time. Each Mission will enable longer stays."<br /><br />It's an amazing stretch to claim that statements regarding long moon missions which employ several landers to bring extra power and supplies means that a single baseline LSAM can support 4 men for 6 months by itself as Handlin has claimed.<br /><br />Neither the space.ref link I provided or the nasa.gov provided by Dobbins says the LSAM works for 6 months. In fact the space.ref link specifically says the LSAM supports it's crew for 7 days.<br /><br />And looked at with logic, the LSAM ability to support 4 men for 7 days is quite impressive by itself. But the idea that one isolated LSAM could support 4 men for 6 months on the moon is ludicrous. The life support consumables alone would be more than 7,500 pounds. <br /><br />How could one LSAM supply power for 6 months? Solar panels? (Even though no mention of solar power panels for the LSAM has even been made!) What good are solar panels during the two week long lunar night? How could you stop the methane fuel of the ascent engine from freezing during those nights? Or the crew? <br /><br />

 

[mattblack]

I actually think he made Nasa's points better than Nasa did. All his technical points have more detail than most Nasa publications I've seen. The only detail I don't think he made very clear is that for an LSAM to support the crew for six months; in one sentence he could have linked the crewed LSAM with a seperately landed cargo and/or logistics LSAM for consumables. And for those that wonder about capsules and not lifting bodies etc. check out most of the "Final" presentation documents in the link below by the contractors concerned, and you'll see capsules galore. Also, nuke propulsion is not needed for lunar missions, for even LOX/Methane represents a quantum leap over Apollo's hypergolics. <br /><br />http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/cer_reports.html<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Establish and occupy a base (2020+)<br />- 4 to 8 crew members<br />- Up to six months<br /><br />from a presentation by the Johnson Space Center<br />http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2005/presentations/tues_pm/01_charles.pdf<br /><br />The LSAM design is just sketched in right now but NASA has made the 6 month intent plain, at least plain to those of us who bother checking things out.<br /><br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"Excuse me? Are we supposed to do without any access to space for 10 or 15 years to work on some new system? "<br /><br />Way I'm seeing it, NASA is pushing back technology development programs that will offer real, economic access to cislunar space (and eventually Mars, and NEA's) by 10 to 15 years so that they can plant a couple of flags and bring back some useless moonrocks six months earlier.<br /><br />NASA's primary focus should be on aeronautic and propulsion technology development and pure research that would otherwise not be done by private industry. Not the bulk transport of cargo.

 

[dobbins]

Yawn, Another Pie in the Sky fan that thinks it's a small leap from basic R&D to working systems.<br /><br />Buy a calender, the debate over if the NACA's mission ought to be expanded to include an operational space program ended in 1958.<br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The LSAM design is just sketched in right now but NASA has made the 6 month intent plain, at least plain to those of us who bother checking things out."<br /><br /> Yes, /* username distortion deleted */ really should check things out shouldn't he? Doesn't he have the sense to quit when he's already behind?<br /><br />"Establish and occupy a base (2020+) <br />- 4 to 8 crew members <br />- Up to six months"<br /><br />This is how /* username distortion deleted */ checks things out? Hmmm...methinks a base is different from a single lander. But not in the Dobbins world for in that world he can never admit an error, ever. <br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

A smart a** attitude is no substitute for being smart enough to to know what you are talking about. I have provided documentation that NASA is planning 6 month missions in the long term. You haven't managed to come up with anything other than incorrect opinions.<br /><br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"Buy a calender, the debate over if the NACA's mission ought to be expanded to include an operational space program ended in 1958. "<br /><br />Yep. Russia won.