Heads up: Exploration Systems Architecture Study

[kane007]

Everyone, wake up.<br /><br />Devils in the details and the details are flowing...<br /><br />SPACE.COM<br /><br />News conference @ 1100 EDT (1500 GMT) - NASA TV<br /><br /><i><font color="yellow">"keep it simple, stupid!"</font></i>/safety_wrapper>

 

[gofer]

Ok, let's start critisizing.<br /><br />From the space.com article: "...However, the shuttle derivative hardware – the CEV booster and heavy-lifter – must draw upon the existing tooling and fabrication facilities, supply chains, and workers to build those components or modify them, Geveden said..."<br /><br />seems to contradict<br /><br />"...Geveden told SPACE.com that tapping shuttle hardware does not equate to maintaining today's entire shuttle workforce. "We can't have 10,000 people on the ground at the Kennedy Space Center," he said, integrating payload and launching that system. <br /><br />"That's not affordable," Geveden said. "The future workforce for launch vehicles can't be as big as it is for shuttle."<br /><br />In order to become leaner in mission launch and operations, Geveden added, more automation through better software, smart sensors, and greater test and checkout technology to ready boosters for flight is critical.<br /><br />..."<br /><br />How many folks getting laid off? (not a fate I'd wish on anyone) I know my public official would object. Sure, you'll say, the Orbiter is being deleted, but I say "would they not just move them to the CEV operations"? Dr. Griffin seems to have said "no cuts to the field centers" or something to that effect?<br />Will they all not be needed again for the CEV/CLV/SDHLV? Thus no savings?<br /><br />Okay, Okay, it's not the final doc. from NASA, but someone has got to be a pain in the bass <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Now this:<br />"...Geveden said 500-metric tons of fuel and structure have been scoped out in the NASA plan for a projected humans-to-Mars flight..."<br /><br />I'm all for humans to Mars, but isn't this kind of early. Who paid the big bucks for this "scoping out" of a far away pipe dream?<br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"I'm all for humans to Mars, but isn't this kind of early. Who paid the big bucks for this "scoping out" of a far away pipe dream?"<br /><br />Missions to Mars have been studied to death over the decades. See this pretty comprehensive report from astronautix.com...<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/martions.htm<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow"> Sure, you'll say, the Orbiter is being deleted, but I say "would they not just move them to the CEV operations"? Dr. Griffin seems to have said "no cuts to the field centers" or something to that effect?</font>/i><br /><br />One potential problem is that the skill set for one phase (e.g., designing and developing new systems) is not the same skill set as the next phase (e.g., manufacturing and operating the new systems).<br /><br />The total head counts might be the similar, but the heads may be different.</i>

 

[gofer]

Yes, I know. I assumed by the phrasing (perhaps wrongly, but we are all in the dark 'till the actual presentation) that it is a brand new "scoping out" based on the brand new architecture, paid for by the brand new dollars. Do you think that NASA engineers just copied the Von Braun's or the Korolyov's beuro plans? Or did they just re-invent the wheel? In any case it's premature and a waste of funds. <br /><br />(edit: the final tangible output of the current moon program (forget LEO?) will weigh in heavily on the final design of any man-to-Mars mission, IMHO)

 

[darkenfast]

Gunsandrockets, that's a nice summation of the various proposals over the years, thanks for the link. I grew up checking out the Von Braun 1956 Mars book (and "First Men to the Moon") repeatedly from the library. There's a copy in the library where I live now. It's still a great book.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Hardly the clearest read in the world....and leaves me thinking we're simply going to repeat the Apollo missions with a load of KSC workers laid off (or more like retired when we ironically lose all the Apollo workers at retirement age).<br /><br />Please don't let this be the presentation, basically NASA moving to sending people up on an SRB and an Apollo to wander around the Moon for a few days.<br /><br />Needs to be more than this.

 

[grooble]

I thought they were going to build a base and have a permanent manned presence on the moon. All i've heard of so far is the spaceship side though. What about the base habitats, power generators and all of that?<br /><br />Just sending a few guys up for a week is a total waste unless they are going to be creating value, such as setting up long term communication / power systems, each mission building up the infrastructure.<br /><br /><br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

That's what I'm miffed about. I can only think the writer could cover one element of the plan - rather than all of the plan - thus that's why it doesn't mention your aforementioned comments.<br /><br />That, or we're about to see a black Monday for NASA's PR machine.<br /><br />This simply can't be the $100 billion plan. As it stands it's an excuse of a plan to get rid of a load of KSC workers on the promise (which can be broken) of repeating Apollo days , which is great news for some of the older posters and STS haters on here who want those days to return.<br /><br />Imho, this leaves NASA in a very dangerous position. <br /><br />We lose the international partner requirement that ensures the STS continuation (or as viable as it can be continued for the ISS....no ISS and I doubt we'd still be flying - or trying to fly - the Shuttle) and put our eggs into a basket that could be scrapped with a change in the political climate.<br /><br />Result, we end up with Sat launches from the Cape and the end of the manned space flight missions at NASA for years and years.<br /><br />Again, we have to wait for the conference. I do not believe this article is "the plan". But I for one have gone from excited to damn nervous.<br /><br />I'm only commenting on the article...as I don't think it's correct as way of showing "the plan."

 

[krrr]

<font color="yellow">I thought they were going to build a base and have a permanent manned presence on the moon. All i've heard of so far is the spaceship side though.</font><br /><br />There's actually a hint of that in the article:<br /><br /><font color="orange">Each team of Moon explorers would leave behind essential components for later use, as well as equipment that could constitute a lunar station. That base could well mirror the type of encampment now situated in Antarctica.</font> <br /><br /><br />Of course it won't suffice to leave a few bottles of oxygen behind. At least one dedicated unmanned cargo flight would be required, I think. <br />

 

[grooble]

When is 3pm GMT in english time? 4pm?

 

[nacnud]

Yes

 

[rfoshaug]

"When is 3pm GMT in english time? 4pm?"<br /><br />Yes, I believe so. GMT is time without daylight savings. Here in the Central European Timezone that means 5pm (we're 6 hours east of EDT), so in UK that should be 4 pm. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[DuhFly]

It has begun. go to nasatv

 

[grooble]

Gotta drool over that rocket.

 

[chriscdc]

Anyone else having a problem with the sound feed?<br />On my connection the sound cuts out for 1/2 second every 5 or so seconds.

 

[grooble]

I'm using the yahoo feed and it is fine.<br /><br />http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/scp/viewer/index.php?client_id=5321&event_id=15891

 

[erauskydiver]

Not a big surprise, but the CNN poll on this is pretty dismal. 37% in favor, 63% opposed. 108,625 votes. I knew that kind of reaction would occur with the hurricane relief effort and war going on right now. Bad timing.

 

[grooble]

I don't think the public wants to fund vacations to the moon for a lucky few <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />.

 

[sequencor]

Polls in general can be very misleading -- let alone online quick-vote polls.

 

[erauskydiver]

Fair enough. Also, one should consider the fact that many of the people who voted may know little of the proposed plan. Though, even with all of the faults associated with polling considered, I am inclined to believe that more are opposed to this program than for it at this particular time due to the other large scale and more "home hitting" issues being dealt with.

 

[edkyle99]

I like the near-term plan to replace shuttle with the SRB-based CEV launcher. This looks do-able and fund-able. The launcher itself will be able to orbit as much mass as a space shuttle! <br /><br />The longer-term lunar exploration plan looks possible, but I suspect funding for it will be problematic. Griffin has a big job ahead of him building support for this concept, but he looks to be the man who can get the job done. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[chriscdc]

But if politics has taught us anything, it's where the people who are against it live that is important.<br /><br />Nasa in florida<br />Florida swing state<br />It's only the opinion of those in florida that you really have to care about.

 

[grooble]

Why not triple NASA budget then and win the election outright because of providing more jobs to florida? and at the same time expanding the space program?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">That is only slightly less that the "in favor" of the Apollo program before the first landing. As I recall the figure for Apollo was 41% in favor.</font>/i><br /><br />In our revisionist views, we think everyone loved Apollo during the 1960s, where that wasn't the case, at least when it came to paying for it.<br /><br />Given the huge bipartisan support in Congress on the most recent vote for NASA's budget (even after Katrina), I think NASA can safely ignore the polls for now.<br /><br />What NASA will need to do (IMHO) is show steady and reliable progress on the new vision over the next few years. For example, maybe next summer NASA can bring out some full size mock-ups of the CEV capsule in two major configurations: 6 crew to ISS and full CARGO to ISS. By 2008 NASA could show some air drop tests of a capsule prototype, with parachutes, and an airbag landing. Somewhere along the lines in 2008-2009 NASA could show hardware ground testing of engine components, detailed software simulations of automatic docking, etc.<br /><br />They key is that at regular intervals, NASA brings out concrete elements showing progress. People (primarily Congress) need to be reassured that the plan is on track and within budget. That would be relatively novel.</i>