Heads up: Exploration Systems Architecture Study

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">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!</font>/i><br /><br />I think this was the most under-appreciated element of the presentation -- the CEV/CLV can launch a full crew to ISS, bring a full crew down, and take up as much cargo as the shuttle can today. The CEV/CLV should, for a much smaller operational cost (!!), be able to provide most of what the shuttle would have done post-2010.<br /><br />Perhaps NASA should have said: <i>The first part of the plan dramatically lowers the cost to crew and operate ISS... oh, and it can be used to go to the Moon too.</i></i>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I don't think the lack of public interest is down to Hurricanes and wars. It's simply a case of "haven't we done this before?"<br /><br />I was warning about this in the post on page one....and it's pretty much negative across the board on the reactions so far that pretty much mirror that.<br /><br />Kneejerk reaction to this $104 billion to get out of the STS program and do what we did four decades ago...that'll change if the talk about plans past the six days on the Moon "sorties".<br /><br />I do appreciate Griffin's "Apollo on Steriods" headline soundbyte though <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Maybe it's been hyped too much, maybe NASA PR simply don't know how to sell anything, maybe both.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Devils in the details and the details are flowing...</font>/i><br /><br />One element that caught my eye was from the presentation and FAQ: "<i>A Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV) consisting of a solid rocket booster and a <b>space shuttle main engine</b> driven upper stage will carry the spacecraft into orbit.</i><br /><br />I was originally under the impression that a different engine would be used for the upper stage. I like the idea of re-using another element (that economies of scale thing).</i>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I think the rumour was it would be a J2S...the SSME was a bit of a surprise.<br /><br />Nice bit of thrust with the 2x5 seg SRB and 5xSSME on the SDLV.......of course, that's about 10 years off (great).

 

[sequencor]

Well said, RadarRedux. <br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[cuddlyrocket]

"Haven't we done this before?"<br /><br />Well, yes (some of it at least). But a lot less often than we've launched a Shuttle to the ISS - let alone into LEO. And nobody under 35 can personally remember it.<br /><br />What counts is Congressional reaction. As Griffin says - it's either this or no manned space program at all, and there's definitely a majority in Congress for a manned space program.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">evils in the details and the details are flowing...</font>/i><br /><br />Another little fact (I think it was the very last question in the presentation): NASA <b><i>is</i></b> planning robotic lander missions to the Moon -- so far I believe only LRO had been officially announced. In fact, Griffin mentioned a standard lander platform that could be equiped differently for different missions, so it sounds like they plan to send a number of landers!</i>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Oh I understand, and as a 33 year old who's own father goes on and on about where he was when NASA went to the Moon, I'm really looking forward to it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I know this is a stepping stone....we've got one USA engineer on our site who said it best when he said "You have to sometimes take a step back to take two steps forward."<br /><br />However, in today's media driven society, someone needs to get hold of NASA HQ by the balls and sort out their presentation, because even I - excited about plans to leave LEO - found myself dissapointed about how they only mentioned a small part of what's going to happen.<br /><br />I saw the news just now, it was one of the last items. They said "NASA is going to spend $100 billion on a new Shuttle using 40 year old ideas to go back to the Moon, as they did in the 1970s," (that is pretty much how they presented it!)

 

[nacnud]

Wasn't the new robotic mission to be a rover? I think I can remember Griffin saying that. If so I suspect it would be heavily influenced by the MER missions. A standard reference rover that could be built numbers of times and in a variety of environments would really bring the cost down for each individual mission <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />In fact that’s what I like most about this architecture, its affordability through its reuse of existing technology and focusing on mission at hand while keeping an eye on the future as well.<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Kneejerk reaction to this $104 billion to get out of the STS program and do what we did four decades ago...that'll change if the talk about plans past the six days on the Moon "sorties".</font>/i><br /><br />Yes, I think NASA (or someone) should focus on the approximate $2 billion per 6-month mission instead of the first $100 billion 2-week mission.<br /><br />However, as said before, I am not concerned with public opinion polls (right now) -- Congress just gave NASA a huge vote of confidence with an overwhelming vote on funding even after Katrina. In the long run, what is more important than looks is for NASA to show it can exectute on the plan on time and within budget.</i>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I keep hearing comments like this, that it doesn't matter what the public think, so long as Congress likes it.<br /><br />I find that shocking...or is this just the US political system?

 

[nacnud]

For those that missed the briefing the BBC has it online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4261522.stm<br /><br />I don't know how long it will be up for.<br /><br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

We have the audio and the animation on the forum's video section, but we'll have the conference as visual in about 30 mins, so if it comes off the BBC, we'll have it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[nacnud]

It's in real player, should be able to download it somehow <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">"You have to sometimes take a step back to take two steps forward." </font><br /><br />This administration has taken so many steps back, we should now be very very far forward... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[grooble]

I bet Morris choked on his coffee when he saw that capsule!

 

[spacefire]

First of all, the Moon as a staging point for a Mars expedition would be an extremely poor choice, because of the presence of gravity...which, to paraphrase Griffin, hasn't changed or dissapeared recently. Obvioulsy that phrase is aimed at the ignorant American public and this program will never progress into a Mars mission, even in the unlikely event it gets off the ground.<br />I propose that NASA is immediately disbanded and their budget be awarded to T/Space,Scaled Composites and SpaceX <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

I guess BBC is full of cretins (much like any respectable media outfit):<br /><font color="purple">This vision aims to return humans to the Moon, and then to use it as a staging point for a manned mission to Mars. </font><br />haven't checked other sources yet.<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>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

It's the BBC. My signature line is in reference to Flight Director Paul Hill's reaction to a BBC reporter's question.<br /><br />The first question the press conference today had a reporter talking about the successful "Discovery Program". Doesn't fill you with hope about the media, ya know.

 

[spacefire]

I read the release at space.com which mentions technology to be used on Mars will be tested on the Moon.<br />That's all bullcrap...Moon and Mars have extremely different environments, they might as well test stuff designed for Mars on Earth istelf which would be much cheaper. There is no good reason to go to the Moon BEFORE we go to Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

That means they'll test long space stay duration on the moon (and test things like consumables, effects on the body yadda yadda yadda)...I'm missing your point?

 

[spacefire]

Moon might be close to "Space" , but Mars is a planet.<br />Like Earth. Antartica. <br />Mars has more gravity than the Moon and an atmosphere. It has weather. It has dust that's gonna get everywhere because there's winds and dust storms.<br /><br />The reasoning of using the Moon as a test case for a Mars mission just doesn't stand. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

The BBC was referring to the original statement from Bush in Jan 04:<font color="yellow"><br /><br />"Nasa is charged with implementing the vision for space exploration, laid out in January 2004 by President George W Bush.<br /><br />This vision aims to return humans to the Moon, and then to use it as a staging point for a manned mission to Mars." (BBC)<br /><br /><font color="white">And IIRC that was the tone of Bushes statement, first the Moon then onto Mars, a 'staging point' is a bad used of words but an understandable mistake.<br /></font></font>

 

[nacnud]

How about the use of Methane/LOX in the RCS?

 

[spacefire]

please elabor8 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>