Heads up: Exploration Systems Architecture Study

[remekr]

<i>"what is the length of each lunar expedition going to be?"</i><br /><br />From 4 to 7 days for the initial landings.<br /><br /><i>"why haven't we seen a proposal for landers that can remain on the surface of the moon as long duration habitats? (no ascent stage)<br />where's the ISRU plant?"</i><br /><br />Probably because the initial lander designs haven't even been finalized yet, nor have landing or possible resource sites been investigated.<br />Also, all those 'extras' would require an increase in the budget which isn't politically feasable right now.<br /><br />Why not let NASA do the smart thing and get the these design proposals done, do the necessary lunar satellite and robotic explorations for any resource sites, then start worrying about longer term hardware?<br />

 

[spacefire]

ok so we've justified another half-assed program because of bugetary constraints. Good going! Let's do something so it doesn't look like we're doing nothing and Congress doesn't get the idea of cutting our funding altogether.<br />Few people here, I'm surprised, see this for what it really is: make-work for NASA to survive <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">What kind of commercial endeavor would it be to go to the Moon to make ice when you are based on Earth -- the "water planet"? You are REALLY out of touch with reality if you think that would be a money-making proposition. </font><br /><br />Did I say that the objective was to bring the water back to Earth? Yes that would be very silly, thank you for pointing out the obvious. 'Make' ice? Of course not - find it, mine it, refine it, use it. The alternative is to bring it all up from the water planet's gravity well, propel it to Luna, go down that gravity well. Can you not conceive the possibility that ISRU makes sense for lunar water?<br /><br />The idea is to use NASA money to drive the development of private capabilities to support NASA operations, be that production of water, food, oxygen, shelter, electricity, whatever.<br /><br />As the private capability is put in place, private markets can develop for those same capabilities. The government revenue stream would be replaced by private revenue streams.<br /><br />Most everyone seems to be stuck on the idea that NASA and alt.space companies are going to be operating in different environments, and that NASA has to do it all by themselves. This is very silly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

In that case, all of NASA programs are commercial endeavors, if you define commercial as building and doing things under government contract. The CEV program is being bid on by two commercial groups. If you define commercial as selling to the general public, I guess the plans for space tourism are the best chance of that. But I think the ice served in drinks on those tours will come from Earth.<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">In that case, all of NASA programs are commercial endeavors, if you define commercial as building and doing things under government contract.</font><br /><br />Yup. But some government/commercial endeavors are dead ends and some lead to a pure commercial enterprises and a prosperous future. What we need from our pal Mike is an approach that gives us the latter, and to put a bullet in the former.<br /><br />I think the ice will come from Earth to start with, but smart people will see that a sustained presence will need ISRU. By the time the drinks have little umbrellas in them, the ice will be from native supplies. But to start down the path to the little umbrella stage, we need to verify the resource. Knowing the truth of that resource will allow plans to be made, not knowing will delay those plans. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">what is the length of each lunar expedition going to be?</font>/i><br /><br />Those plans are very vague right now, but what has been talked about are a 1-week mission of four astronauts for the first mission and roughly two 6-month missions each year (i.e., a permanent manned presense) in following missions. It is similar to the ISS mission profiles... only on the Moon instead of LEO.<br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">why haven't we seen a proposal for landers ... long duration habitats ... ISRU plant?</font>/i><br /><br />The initial plan is about creating the infrastructure to get humans and a relatively large amount of mass into space safely, reliably, and efficiently. Once you can do that, there are lots of opportunities to do lots of things. Exactly what those things are (I call them "exploration applications") can be determined later.<br /><br />Maybe by 2010 Bigelow's inflatable facilities work so well NASA will "buy" a Lunar version, and it will be sent to the moon as a habitat before the first manned mission. Then the first manned mission will be 6 months long. Maybe Bigelow's plans will go bust, and NASA will need to look for an alternative.<br /><br />Maybe during orbital and lander reconnaissance a substantial amount of ice is found at the Lunar poles, the ice is easy to reach and process, and a clean landing site is found nearby with continuous sunlight. Then the first missions might use solar panels (no nuclear power needed) and land near the poles.<br /><br />On the other hand, maybe the early reconnaissance find no substantial water in the cold traps on the Moon, but some great mineral deposits are found. Then the first missions are changed to "stake our claim" to these valuable deposits and begin figuring out how to exploit them.<br /><br />Or perhaps the early reconnaissance finds something of incredible scientific interest, and so a quick manned sortie is targeted to that location.<br /><br />Or m</i></i>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...we need to verify the resource. Knowing the truth of that resource will allow plans to be made, not knowing will delay those plans."</font><br /><br />This is EXACTLY what the science that comes out of the current Moon mission plans will do. I take it then that you are on board with the current plans. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">The point is that the core capability is being developed (mass and humans into space), and how that capability will be used may be determined by a lot of factors we cannot answer or know right now. Tying our hands with very specific goals for the next 15-20 years is probably not a good idea, hence, the outlying plans are purposely vague. </font><br /><br />see, we're going in circles. The VSE was supposed to be about a clear goal, rather than...if we build it they will come. The newly developed launch system will probably still cost more than the Soyuz or the Energia in the case of the HL SDLV.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">I take it then that you are on board with the current plans. </font><br /><br />Yeah sure ya betcha. <br /><br />Based on my faith that Mike Griffin will make the needed outreach to alt.space along the lines we've discussed. If he shockingly fails to do so, I'll probably withdraw my support and go back to figuring out how to do it all anyway. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

The VSE was about politics, it was about giving NASA the green light to begin planning for the post-shuttle era.<br /><br />This ESAS thingie is about establishing the *capability* to do the things Americans want to do.<br /><br />There is a difference between establishing *capability* to do things - no matter how vague that list of things is - and the classic 'build it and they will come' approach.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">see, we're going in circles. The VSE was supposed to be about a clear goal, rather than...if we build it they will come.</font>/i><br /><br />What you are describing seems to be, "<i>I don't know what to do with it, but I am sure something useful will be found once we build the infrastructure.</i>"<br /><br />What I am saying is, "<i>We have lots of existing goals we would like to achieve and we will probably have more soon, but we don't have to decide which specific one to pursue right now.</i>" Ask ten of us on this board what we should do, and you will probably get 15 different ideas, but all will include moving people and mass into space. If don't do anything until we have 100% consensus on a very specific goal (especially given that new data will come streaming in over the next 10 years), then we probably won't do anything.<br /><br />An engineering degree at a university is often similar -- the first two years of classes for most of the degrees are the same (calculus, physics, chemistry, programming, basic lower division engineering courses), and you only need to specialize once you hit upper division. Think of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study as the first two years of a four year engineering degree.</i>

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">An engineering degree at a university is often similar -- the first two years of classes for most of the degrees are the same (calculus, physics, chemistry, programming, basic lower division engineering courses), and you only need to specialize once you hit upper division. Think of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study as the first two years of a four year engineering degree.</font><br /><br />again, a very discouraging analogy...if you only knew how many people drop out of Engineering or change majors... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">if you only knew how many people drop out of Engineering or change majors...</font>/i><br /><br />Hmm... I have worked in or with the College of Engineering at our local university for 21 years. I have a passing familiarity with it.</i>

 

[gofer]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The initial plan is about creating the infrastructure to get humans and a relatively large amount of mass into space safely, reliably, and efficiently. Once you can do that, there are lots of opportunities to do lots of things. Exactly what those things are (I call them "exploration applications") can be determined later. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes! Thank you! Exactly my point. This is exactly why the proposed plan is a dead end* You can't justify a publically funded program with "you build it and we (NASA) we'll figure what it's for later" goal. You've got to state it now. And you've got to state it specifically.<br /><br />*Especially, when it won't obviously do it "safely, reliably, and efficiently".<br />