Moon Plans Unveiled...a new Apollo?

centsworth_II · Sep 20, 2005

"These "exploration applications" are enabled by the proposed space architecture. Which ones will be pursued can be decided down the road, but before any of them can happen, the basic launch capability presented on Tuesday must be developed.' I hope more and more of the current naysayers in this forum start to understand this. All their moon and Mars base dreams can be realized with the propsed system... when someone comes up with the money. But the system has to be in place first! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dj13 · Sep 20, 2005

Looks like the Russians, or the Chinese will do what American Capitalists are affraid to do. For the most part anyway. Either of those two countries can accomplish what we did for probably less than we originally paid. Then they will sell thier services to us at great profits and we will lose out on all the new patents gained from developing new technowlegies. That part of it is a shame IMHO, but, for the greater good of mankind, is it so important? Since it will mostly mean that english does not become the language most used in space, I think yes it is important. It will however probably shut out Christianity from its traditional role of spreading the word.

centsworth_II · Sep 20, 2005

"Looks like the Russians, or the Chinese will do what American Capitalists are affraid to do." National governments are not well known for their buisness savey. Just because a government is proposing doing something doen't make it a good business idea. These governments may well be able to augment their space budgets with space tourism dollars, but turning it into a profitable busness is a different matter. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

serak_the_preparer · Sep 20, 2005

My disappointment in the plan that has been unveiled is quickly evaporating. As I keep studying it, and looking at it more closely, I am finding that this plan has the potential to succeed, and to make humanity a multi-world species. My initial disappointment stemmed from a lunar base not being included in the plan, however, at closer examination, it is included in the plan on a pay as you go basis. Breif, Your journey sounds similar to mine. I was not initially too thrilled with what I was hearing. As things have progressed, however, Griffin's plan sounds better and better. Self-delusion on my part? Or a furthering of my education? I'm hoping for the latter, obviously. I'm with you - and also DrummerGuy - that a moonbase is really an essential here. Are we only repeating Apollo? Or going beyond Apollo? We need to catch up to where we were more than thirty years ago, but then we need to keep on going. As I seem to recall George Bush, Sr., saying once, we need the 'big mo.' NASA presents space exploration plans by Mark Peplow (Nature) 19 September 2005 The mission plan aims to leave as much equipment on the lunar surface as possible, to help build future Moon bases. It also allows access to anywhere on the Moon, unlike the Apollo missions that were restricted to equatorial regions. This means that astronauts could explore the Moon's poles, where water ice probably nestles in shadowed craters. Exploiting the Moon's natural resources is essential if NASA is to have a permanently manned base there. Once the programme is up and running, Griffin anticipates two Moon missions each year.... My strong impression is that NASA intends to have a base on the Moon. What I like about the approach adopted by Griffin is that just when the Congress gets restless, and the public looks like it might start g

yree · Sep 20, 2005

Well, I want to see a new generation of fully reusable "space planes", so I hope somebody can pull it off if NASA won't. Something like SpaceDev's X-34 derived "Dreamchaser" is more of a step forward than an updated Apollo CM tin can, imo." SpaceDev's HL-20 derived "Dreamchaser"!!! http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=businesstech&Number=191204&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=4

yree · Sep 20, 2005

"Griffin is also earmarking several hundred million dollars for commercial supplies and crew services to ISS -- this will be a good bootstrap business for companies like SpaceX and t/Space." companies like SpaceX NO and t/Space NO.

spacefire · Sep 20, 2005

HL-20 has nothing to do with the X-34 or the DreamChaser. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

barrykirk · Sep 20, 2005

Fully reusable space planes? Due to the laws of physics and engineering that won't be feasible until we have high ISP high thrust engines. Or if we had a space elevator, than we wouldn't even need planes. Keep in mind that with current technology rockets lifting off from the earth directly, we are lucky to have even 5% of the liftoff mass reach Low Earth Orbit. Now if a good portion of that 5% is the structure and wings and re-entry thermal management system, that leaves very little left over for actual payload. That is one of the reasons why the shuttle was so freakin expensive. The Russians don't have anywhere near the economy that the USA has and they've been able to afford a comparable manned space program to the US... The reason is that they aren't tied to making it re-usable. Now, if fundamentally new tech becomes available, that equation could change. The two techs on the horizon that have the ability to really change that are. 1) Space Elevator / Space Tether 2) Ground Based Laser powered rocket.

barrykirk · Sep 20, 2005

Having said all of that... There is one tech that I saw in a 1960's vintage Analog Magazine that would work for non fragile cargo only. Build a momentum bank. A momentum bank is a very long linear electric motor in orbit. It has solar cells / batteries for power and Ion engines / mass driver engines to maintain station. Cargo rockets would fire straight up with no horizontal velocity component to intercept the altitude of the momentum bank. A rocket that only has to travel straight up to 250 miles altitude with LOX / RP-1 could be as much as 90% payload by mass. The momentum bank would catch the cargo rocket with a linear electric motor. Unload it and shoot the empty rocket out the back. Thermal management would be very minimal. I just realized as I was writing this that this is essentially the same idea as a tether, but a lot more expensive and complicated.

votefornimitz · Sep 20, 2005

Heh, I can see rubi wan't joking..... Look, we would Bush spend more money doing somthing in space that would be easier and cheaper to do within the atmosphere... And are you saying there is somthing wrong with being a meglomaniac? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> In the event of a full scale nuclear war or NEO impact event, there are two categories of underground shelters available to the public, distinguished by depth underground: bunkers and graves... </div>

yg1968 · Sep 20, 2005

There is a lot of debate on this thread but very little information is given. I was curious to learn more about the CEV. I watched Griffin's presentation on the moon program. He convinced me that this was the only affordable plan (even though I would have preferred a more exciting vehicule than a capsule). Concerning the CEV, I have gathered that the CEV will be used to ferry cargo to the ISS, will be used to get into Lunar orbit, can carry up to 4 astronauts to the moon or 6 to the ISS (and eventually to Mars?). It can also be sent to space with only cargo and no astronauts (i.e. it can be controlled remotelly). It has the (pressurised, what ever that means?) cargo capacity of the shuttle if no astronauts are present. It can be used to service Hubble or an (earth orbit) Hubble replacement (if one is ever made). It will have solar panels (what happens if these panels brake?). Finally, it is not reusable (except for the capsule that lands on earth and can be partly reused 5 to 10 times) as it will fall into ocean after a mission. Any other info that I am missing?

priusguy · Sep 20, 2005

Yes, it's Bruce Gagnon, founder of "Gnaw 'N Piss" and the driving force behind lawsuits to stop Galileo and Cassini: http://www.globenet.free-online.co.uk/images/bruceg.jpg I always thought he is simply a hater of Western Civilization of Michael Moore/Noam Chomsky variety, but apparently I was mistaken. Mr Gagnon's posts do not display a fraction of these gentlemen's intelligence and debating sense, and indicate, basically, a paranoid mental patient. We should just stay out of space and leave it alone. Make it a protected wilderness free of human interference. Bruce, here is a hint -- 100% of posters on this board WANT humanity to expand into space. About 98% understand and accept that it can only be done with nuclear power -- even those who can't stand Bush. You won't win any converts here. Although you are welcome to keep posting -- we all enjoy a good laugh.

serak_the_preparer · Sep 21, 2005

Yes, it's Bruce Gagnon... Actually, it's not. It's someone who violently opposes Bruce Gagnon and launched a concerted effort to defame Gagnon here (and probably elsewhere on the Web). That said, I do agree with you that the no-holds-barred anti-war, anti-capitalist, etc., agenda of the far left can go too far. Where the real Gagnon opposes nuclear power in space, for instance, my own view is that he is way out of bounds. No one here is talking about launching Project Orion directly from Earth, after all. In the case of Cassini, a pitifully small amount of radioactive material was involved, well worth the small risk given the enormous scientific pay-off. . . . indicate, basically, a paranoid mental patient. I believe you're right on this point, as the individual impersonating Gagnon has caused similar problems on Space.com in the past. The MO is always the same as what we saw here in the last few hours. Some kind of mental imbalance must be responsible for such ridiculous behavior. 100% of posters on this board WANT humanity to expand into space. About 98% understand and accept that it can only be done with nuclear power -- even those who can't stand Bush. You won't win any converts here. True in every respect. But he wasn't trying to win converts over to an anti-nuclear stance. Just the contrary, the individual responsible adopted the Bruce Gagnon ID in order to defame that position and actually win converts for nuclear power. But, as you point out, such an effort is still wasted here, whichever point of view is being advocated. Man's future in space requires nuclear power and most of us here understand that. Spamming for or against that point of view will do nothing to change that reality.

yg1968 · Sep 21, 2005

shuttle_guy. Thanks for the extra info. I was quoting what Griffin said about servicing Hubble in the Q&A. I know that the capsule will land on the ground but the rest of the (disposable) CEV will fall in the ocean. I thought that Griffin said that the CEV would have the same capacity as the shuttle in the Q&A. But it wasn't clear to me. Here are the relevant excerpts from Griffin's speach: Shortly, prior to earth entry, the service module separates. The command module re-enters, very much like a power, landing on the west coast. As we've said in several prior briefings, it needs to land on the west coast of some country, because we want the service module to go in the water, rather than landing on people's heads or on their cows. Griffin's answer to a reporter named Tom: Let me also point out that, for the first five or six years, what we are really developing is the shuttle successor, the crew exploration vehicle. The crew exploration vehicle is designed with its launch system to go to low earth orbit. Once you're in low earth orbit, you can do any number of things. You must go through low earth orbit to go anywhere else. We can go to the moon. In later decades, we can go to Mars. We can service the space station. We can undertake the service of the Hubble space telescope or other space telescopes, as may exist. We can do anything. This new vehicle is the vehicle that lets us do that and unless the United States wants to get out of the manned space flight business completely, then this is the vehicle we need to be building. And I don't hear anyone saying that the United States would be better off being out of space when other nations are there. So, that's my answer, Tom. MR. LEARY: Warren Leary, "New York Times." When the CEV is ready to go to the station, will it be strictly used as a true transfer vehicle or will there be a light cargo version that

priusguy · Sep 21, 2005

Serak -- Thank you, that makes things clearer. BTW, I had been away since the Great SDC Crash, but now will post every now and then.

nacnud · Sep 21, 2005

The CLV (Crew Launch Vehicle, the SRB single stick design) has a greater mass to orbit than the STS system, however payloads that are designed for the STS would have to be either redesiged or an expensive 'strong back' developed to simulate conditions on the STS. So the US isn't loosing the ablity to launch shuttle class payload masses but new payloads would have to be designed for the new vehicle.

yg1968 · Sep 21, 2005

Thanks for the info, shuttle_guy.

centsworth_II · Sep 21, 2005

Thanks for the link to Griffin's talk, it allowed me to check something that caught my attention when he said it. "The lander concept is very notional, because implicit in our requirement is the, we believe the requirement to have a man tended or tenable lunar base capability. That will be best obtained by a lander design, which leaves us much on the surface as possible, because the lander, of course, is expendable. There is no sense expending it to ill purpose. We'd like to leave as much on the surface as we can." Does this mean that landers left on the Moon, even in initial missions, are intended to be used as infrastucture for future bases? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BReif · Sep 21, 2005

Sounds that way. Perhaps robotic precursor missions will be sent ahead of human landings to indentify a prospective site for several missions to land and do science. Perhaps a central location that makes other interesting locations accesible from the base camp on the surface. Then, I can see using material and equipment left behind on the descent stages being used to construct a base. This leads me to a new question? Is there a pressuruzed long range rover vehicle being planned as part of this lunar plan for long range surface excursions from the base camp, excursions that could last several days to sites over 100 miles from the base camp (obviously this is better suited to later in the program when crews are staying on the surface for weeks rather than days)?

kane007 · Sep 21, 2005

The other real exciting part is the SDHLLV - a russian proton could orbit 20,000 kg like the Zvezda ISS module, imagine what 100+ tonnes would get you in a lower inclination orbit! DO NO HARM/safety_wrapper>

radarredux · Sep 21, 2005

> P.S. For the complete speach by Griffin, see:/i> For more details, see: http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/cev.html (HTML FAQ) http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/133820main_ESAS_Facts.pdf (PDF fact sheet) http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/133654main_ESAS_charts.pdf (PDF slides)

radarredux · Sep 21, 2005

> I thought that Griffin said that the CEV would have the same capacity as the shuttle in the Q&A. But it wasn't clear to me/i> The Crew Launch Vehicle (CLV -- that is, the single stick SRB plus upper stage engine) without the CEV on top can take a payload of similar mass as the shuttle can. Think of three modes:<ul type="square"><li>Pressurized CEV with crew and a small amount of cargo.<li>Pressurized unmanned CEV with 6000 pounds<li>No CEV, just unpressurized payload/cargo of about 25 MT. </li></li></li></ul> /> As we've said in several prior briefings, it needs to land on the west coast of some country, because we want the service module to go in the water, rather than landing on people's heads or on their cows./i> The "service module" is basically an attachment to the CEV capsule that includes an engine and additional supplies (?). It is thrown away at the end of the mission, but it will follow a similar trajectory to the CEV capsule. The "service module" lands in the ocean off the west coast, and the CEV capsule lands on the land of the west coast. My Question: What is the margin of error for where the capsule will land? I always think of those Mars landings where they have the huge ellipses, and say the lander will land somewhere in this large ellipse.

kane007 · Sep 22, 2005

The mars missions don't have a constellation of GPS birds for added accuracy. DO NO HARM/safety_wrapper>

lampblack · Sep 22, 2005

hmmm... I see several outraged responses to someone named BruceGagnon -- but no original posting from said Bruce. I'm guessing that somebody said something especially offensive? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

lampblack · Sep 22, 2005

This may seem counterintuitive -- and it may not even have occurred to me if I weren't sipping my second glass of wine of the evening -- but what if Michael Griffin actually expects private industry to step in to fill the two-year gap between the shuttle's retirement in 2010 and the planned first launch of the CEV in 2012? What if in his heart-of-hearts, he EXPECTS private industry to fly crews to ISS after 2010 -- with the net result that the U.S. government will be dependent on private industry rather than the Russian government? (All in all, a much more comfortable place to be.) The whole notion has a vaguely conspiratorial feel to it. But what if, in fact, Griffin is counting on it -- and is even putting his money where his mouth is to make it happen? As supporting documentation, I offer the next-to-last question that was asked during Monday's press conference, along with Griffin's response. Note particularly his reference to the possibility of commercial providers emerging "in the next five to seven years" -- which is to say, within the 2010-2012 time frame: **** FROM GRIFFIN'S PRESS CONFERENCE **** MR. HOFFMAN[ph]: Carl[ph] Hoffman, "Popular Mechanics." Burt Rutan, Elan Musk, Jeff Bazos, all these entrepreneurs are out there. Do you perceive any role for some of those people in this much bigger plan? DR. GRIFFIN: NASA has not had at its upper levels a manager or an administrator more supportive of commercial enterprise than I. We are base lining in the out years past the retirement of the shuttle, we are base lining commercial service to the station. That is the only known and knowable, at this point, market for those entrepreneurs that I have to give. We are base lining the use of that market for them and are providing, will be providing this fall a new procurement to try to stimulate that market. That said, at the end of the day, what commercial means is, that it is not government d <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

Moon Plans Unveiled...a new Apollo?

centsworth_II

Guest

dj13

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

yree

Guest

yree

Guest

spacefire

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

barrykirk

Guest

votefornimitz

Guest

yg1968

Guest

priusguy

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

yg1968

Guest

priusguy

Guest

nacnud

Guest

yg1968

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

BReif

Guest

kane007

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

kane007

Guest

lampblack

Guest

lampblack

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page