Excellent ESAS Lunar Article: Summarizes Handily

[mattblack]

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/502/1<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>

 

[darkenfast]

Very nice article. I can hear some people frothing at the mouth and sharpening their Official Space Cadet pocketknives already.

 

[ragnorak]

<br />I think the 2018 target has to be doubted, even if the CEV and all the necessary technology can be done. I think the industry knows that if it doesn't deliver then its curtains. The big problem in the past has been over ambitious programmes that have had funds cut, for example the Next Generation Launcher operated out of Huntsville. The biggest reason to expect no 2018 is the choice to go with the 125t in-line rather than the heavily researched Shuttle-C launcher. I'd say 2025 for Moon landing. About the same time as the Chinese! ;-)

 

[vt_hokie]

What the author fails to recognize is that programs like X-33 and X-34 failed for political reasons as much as technical ones. If this nation had been willing to fund inevitable cost overruns as it did during Apollo, those programs could have given us something in return for the money spent on them. Instead, we just gave up and wasted the effort. The author mentions X-38. Well, that was killed solely for political reasons. The program was progressing nicely, and there were no technical hurdles preventing the development of a functional X-38 based CRV.

 

[nacnud]

No it was killed because there wasn't enough money and Soyuz(s) would do. The Hab, Node 3, CAM etc were also well within the available technology but also got killed because there wasn't enough money.

 

[vt_hokie]

I'd sure rather spend the money to complete the hab module, Node 3, CAM, CRV, etc. than do a half assed job on ISS so that we can waste money trying to recreate Apollo!

 

[dobbins]

Basically the reason we are grounded now is because piggyback payloads aren't a good idea in general, and are an even worse idea when you are using cryogenic fuels to launch out of a high humidity area like KSC. We need the inline launcher.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

vt, it's easy to tell you are a Liberal, your answer to every problem is "throw more money at it". The Shuttle and the attempts to build a space plane since then have pretty much proven one fact. The cheap affordable spaceplane is just as much science fiction as warp drive and transporters. Spaceplanes are NOT economically viable at the present time and no spaceplane will or can be viable until two things happen. Advances in technology and a flight rate that will bring down servicing costs.<br /><br />Until then building an operational spaceplane just because some people think they look cool is a stupid idea.<br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

I'd rather see ISS peices designed for more than one boster, much like GEO sats are currently. I'd love it if the ATV/HTV/progress could be reconfigured for this, let the US build them and Europe/Japan/Russia launch them, that would make a change <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[dobbins]

Most of the ISS segments are either already built or far along in construction. Rebuilding them for other launchers is too expensive.<br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

That'd be nice, except for one major problem: Shuttle is a truly unique launch vehicle. There is nothing that can take up its payloads. We're talking more than just reconfiguration. You'd have to redesign them from the ground up. Shuttle has extraordinarily benign launch conditions in terms of vibration and structural loads. It's also capable of furnishing electrical power and coolant to a payload long after launch. It can place payloads directly into their final position, obviating the need for any sophisticated navigational computers, engines, and tanks of propellant. And lastly, it can launch damn big payloads (both in terms of mass and volume). Compare Destiny to Zvezda and you can get an idea of the difference in capabilities between Shuttle and Proton.<br /><br />I, too, would like to see pieces designed for more than one booster, but the reality is that you can get a lot more out of a component designed to be launched via Shuttle than you can with a component designed to be launched by Proton. So I can perfectly understand why the design decisions were made which restricted so many components to Shuttle launch. It's also why I am admittedly a bit sad to see Shuttle go. It has unique capabilities which will be lost when it goes. But there's more than one way to skin a cat, as it were; the next space station will likely be designed differently. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

I was more thinking of cancelled modules that would still be of use, CAM-a-like, a small hab, unknown future modules etc rather than the already built truss segments, and labs <br /><br />Edit, perhaps leaving the pressurised section of the ATV attached and taking the rubbish away in a bag instead, a bit like the way the orbital section of the SZ stays around on orbit for a while. Yeah it is pie in the sky stuff but 'Tesco value pie' rather than 'Sarah Lee double sunday fudge cake with extra cream'

 

[spacefire]

I must admit I am impressed with the cargo capacity of the new lunar landers. I am not impressed with the throwaway approach of this entire program.<br />Until we develop a truly reusable spaceship that can fly multiple trips between the Earth and the Moon we will still be in the realm of short term exploration programs that end just like Apollo did.<br />Obvioulsy alongside a lunar ferry we'd need a cheap(er) way to send astronauts to LEO, and that's where a reusable spaceplane come sinto play.<br />I do like the new lander, with its endurance (if indeed it will be as durable as anticipated) it's a step in the right direction. The rest of the VSE-ESAS, however, is not the right approach in my opinion.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

You can work on reuseablity once the basic system is in place, one thing at a time. For instance with a commercial LEO fuel depot or perhaps Moon ISRU it might be worth reuseing the Earth Departure Stage. <br /><br />However I don't think it will be worth reusing the EDS untill those option(s) are available. Does that mean that Moon exploration is off untill then?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow"> I'd say 2025 for Moon landing.</font>/i><br /><br />I would think NASA's manned space program would be scuttled before then. I would go 2018 +/- 1 year, or not at all (at least for NASA).</i>