Northrop and Boeing quick to jump on the CEV money-train!

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><font color="yellow">answers...</font><br /><br />That might be one of the most rediculous things I have ever seen. <font color="yellow">I explain to you... the image synthetize the fact that, while NASA will play a "Pepsi can" (sorry... "CEV") and new (beautiful) lunar rocks, the rest of the world may develop true useful vehicle to send astronauts and material in orbit at lower cost than to-day (this is the BASE of every LEO, lunar or mars mission)</font>or one thing, that Chinese spacecraft would take many more years and funds to build than the CEV ever will. <font color="yellow"> WAIT! you will be WONDERED of WHAT China will do in next 10-20 years on the space (and on earth)!!!!</font><br />Two why would you EVER take wings to the Moon? Tell me, is there an atmosphere on the Moon that we've somehow missed? No, of course. For lunar mission there is no need of wing, but the BASE of any mission is to go in orbit and come back to earth live (I can assure you that, in earth atmosphrere, is BETTER and safer to have some wings...)<br />Leave the sexy winged spacecraft to the Burt Rutans out there. The CEV may not look as nice as the winged craft in that image, however, it is what gets the job done. And why si everyone making the Chinese out to be the new leaders in technology? THEY ARE USING AN OLD 1960's STYLE CAPSULE TOO!!!! And once again, they can't even afford more than one flight every year or so, how are they ever going to build a nice sleep winged spacecraft like that? <font color="yellow">Not to-day, but... in next 20-30 years, when you (or your sons) will use Yuan (instead of dollars) and will work fo a Chinese company, you will change your opinion...</font><br /><br />All of you who are trying to make the CEV out to be a waste are doing a realy poor job of it.<font color="yellow"> 98% of unreusable parts IS a waste!</font>So far your only argument is that it looks like something out of date. <font color="</safety_wrapper"></font>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><font color="yellow">answers...</font><br /><br />Dude, even if the shuttle is unmanned with a flight rate of 12 flights a year, it will still be much more expensive than using EELVs or better still Falcon9s. <font color="yellow">you compare a vehicle that EXIST with a veichle that DON'T EXIST, if you need to go to Chile NOW and the ONLY flight costs 3000 dollars, you MUST pay that money or DON'T FLY. it is not important how much Shuttle costs, to-day there are only TWO alternatives: fly with Shuttle or don't fly! </font><br /><br />If there’s water ice on the moon, then we can make rocket fuel on the moon, which means we can kick start the Luna economy. <font color="yellow">I think that you have no idea of the complexity, costs and dimension of the industries tha make, store, transport and use cryogenic fuels!!!!! if you consider ONLY the "weight" of them, you will understand how much may be complex and expensive to send them on the moon. (simply) send water and fuels from earth will costs 100 times less!!!</font><br /><br />I suggest you read Mining the Sky by John S. Lewis <font color="yellow">many years ago I've read the fascinating mars stories of Ray Bradbury, but nothing has become real...</font><br /> <br /> <br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

I have come to the conclusion that Gaetanomaramo is a fanatic about his scheme of launching an unmanned shuttle. That means that no logic, no facts, nothing will sway him from pushing his senseless plan. Best just to ignore the nonsense he keeps posting.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I'm not "fanatic" of Shuttle, my answers are all logical and argued, but, if you love so much the "CEVpollo", I can only say "God save the CEV!" (and the money the new plan will bring in the pocket of many...)<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

Gaetanomaramo,<br /><br />The fact that the shuttle's high launch costs have NOTHING to do with it having or not having a crew has been pointed out to you by at least a dozen different people, and that bit of reality hasn't stopped you from this senseless spamming.<br /><br />If you think it's such a good idea, then buy the stupid things when NASA finishes with them and start your own space program with your own money.<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

my posts are not spamming!<br /><br />if you have any argument, please tell them, don't insult me!<br /><br />please, give me a list of useful (and realistic) reasons to go again to moon!<br /><br />- new (beautiful) rocks?<br />- a new laser reflector to better measure the moon-earth distance?<br />- an experiment to observe frog's sex with lunar gravity?<br /><br />each CEV-SDLV lunar mission starts with two giant rockets and ends with:<br /><br />- a little capsule<br />- a few rocks<br />- two SRBs<br /><br />a cost of over $2 billion per mission of which only a few millions come back!<br /><br />please, explain me why it is a so intelligent and rational plan that no one can criticize it!<br /><br />I've read many forums and articles, and I feel that a new religion is born: "CEV"!<br /><br /><br />

 

[kane007]

I think their are 2 primary reasons for "going back to the moon", please add more as you see fit - UNDERSTANDING and EXPERIENCE! These are my 2 main but there are a heck of a lot of others.<br /><br /><font color="red">DO NO HARM</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[yree]

current leader private ISS resuply that is SpaceDev

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I think that money MUST be spent for research!<br /><br />I agree with you that "UNDERSTANDING" is fundamental.<br /><br />But, on the moon, there is only a little to understand (and the "experience" of go moon and come back was already proven as possible with Apollo missions).<br /><br />On earth there are 1000 times more interesting things to understand if the same money is spend to build new particle accelerators, fusion reactors, new safer high speed airplanes, neural computers, etc.<br /><br />

 

[gladiator1332]

How come after China launches two manned spaceflights over a span of 2 years, suddenly they are going to conquer the world? All this China stuff is overhyped. What they did was great, however, why so much attention? Russia launches three guys in a similar looking spacecraft and they get no attention. China does this, and suddenly they are going to rule the world. And I keep hearing how China is going to build these wonderful spacecraft, where is the money going to come from! I haven't seen anything from China that has stated they are looking to build RLVs or anything. Actually they said they want to go to the Moon. They too will be taking a trip in a 60's style capsule on a throwaway rocket, and yes they will return by parachute in a tiny capsule. <br /><br />The private industry is the answer to lower launch costs. SpaceX is going to prove this with the Falcon family of rockets. Once they prove that a small company can get contracts and build a successful fmaily of rockets, you're going to see many other companies follow in their footsteps.

 

[kane007]

The Apollo missions provided the equivalent amount of experience as the early aeroplane pioneers pre 1910. Did we stay still and stop flying? Did people stop climbing Everest after Hillary and Norgay?<br /><br />Insitu resource utillisation, building with lunar materials - all have flow ons to how we'll do it further out in the Cosmos.<br /><br />Understanding is more than what is moon stuff, but also how the space environment affects biologicals - medical tech, how we can develop better and more efficient technologies for further expansions - their spinoffs for residents on Earth. Radiation shielding - physical, electromagnetic, etc. ETC. The list is endless...

 

[gladiator1332]

Exactly!<br /><br />The goal of Apollo was to simply beat the Soviets there, and then see if man can survive and work on the Moon. Only in the last 3 missions did we really see any real science taking place. The CEV missions will do all of this, and but begin a new chapter, where like you said, we'll begin to see if we can live off the land. <br /><br />Apollo originally was supposed to be a bridge to Mars missions, unfourtatley that bridge collapased. I truly believe we need some more experience with living on the Moon before we even attempt a Mars mission.

 

[dobbins]

The Moon has a surface area roughly the size of North America and South America combined. What Apollo did is like flying to 6 airports in North America and South America, getting out and walking around near the airplane for a few hours, then leaving. If you did that and claimed that you had explored the Americas most people would laugh at you.<br /><br />Apollo was no more than a brief preliminary to a real exploration of the Moon. We had barely gotten started before we stopped.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

" I truly believe we need some more experience with living on the Moon before we even attempt a Mars mission"<br /><br />You hit the nail on the head there. Establishing a Moon base is like the experience we got with Mercury and Gemini before we attempted to go to the Moon with Apollo. It a vital preliminary step. If there is something wrong with the planning and a rescue is needed the Moon is just three days away instead of the months it takes to get to Mars. If something goes wrong on Mars the crew is dead meat. We need to get the experience of working on another world on the nearby Moon before we attempt it on the far more distant Mars.<br /><br />

 

[frodo1008]

Also, I don't believe that a Mars mission should ever be even attempted with only one ship, and that ship with only 4 or 5 people! That is a formula for disaster! <br /><br /> Redundancy HAS to be the name of the game, enough ships must be sent that if one ship breaks down then the crews have enough space on board the other ships to comfortably take on the disabled crew. There is going to be NO Apollo 13 type of rescue for those millions of miles from the Earth! <br /><br />The crews themselves must have enough people in the crew to NOT get on each others nerves (the psychological problems could be even worse than the physical ones!). We must completely understand what living is like at 0.38 g's for prolonged periods of time, and how to protect us from solar flares.<br /><br />We have a far LONGER road to go here than the people of the Mars Society would have us believe! Now, I like Dr Robert Zubrins's attitiudes, and his idea of living off of the resourses of Mars itself is brilliant, and should be of great help in going out that far at all. But his estimates of what it is going to take financially as well as in other things are so far off what it is actually going to take as to be almost comedy! And as for the pure private interests being interested, where is the profit for the expenditure of billions?<br /><br />No, I am sorry for all of those adventure oriented people, but we are a LONG way from going to Mars!!!

 

[najab]

><i>China does this, and suddenly they are going to rule the world. And I keep hearing how China is going to build these wonderful spacecraft, where is the money going to come from!</i><p>I think America is doing a pretty good job of financing China's space program - look around your house and see how many items say "Made in America" and how many say "Made in China". In case you haven't heard, China's economy has been growing at about 10% year for the last decade and they <b>are</b> the World's largest economic force.</p>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...suddenly they are going to conquer the world?..."<br /><br />I give you some possible answers...<br /><br />- because China economy is growing at a 10% per year<br />- because China increase the number of new engineers of 400,000 per year<br />- because China is more rich every day<br />- because China has many funds to invest<br />- because China is VERY ambitious<br />- because China NEVER reveal its future plans<br />- etc.<br /><br />to-day, China has only old spacecraft, but you can be sure that they are developing new vehicles, and, when they are ready, they will reveal to the world (not before!)<br /><br />China is building the biggest cities, the fastest trains (China has bought the german's levitation train TO BUILD IT while, in germany, it is only used for tests!!!), the highest skyscrapers... wait the time necessary, and you will see MORE than you can imagine to-day!<br /><br /><br /><br />"...The private industry is the answer to lower launch costs..."<br /><br />the capacity of "little private companies" is overextimated a much... they don't have the money and the technology to send a plane in orbit... I think it is already incredible that they can do brief sub-orbital flights!<br /><br />why no one "little company" has build a (simple) rocket able to send a little satellite in orbit?<br /><br />...because it is complex and costly (50-100-200 times than a sub-orbital flights!), it needs great experience and only NASA, ESA &C. have them; privates will need 15-20 years to send an astronaut in orbit and bring back him to earth alive!<br /><br />

 

[rubicondsrv]

"why no one little company has build a rocket able to send a little satellite in orbit"<br /><br />They have.<br /><br />www.orbital.com/SpaceLaunch/Pegasus/index.html<br /><br />www.spacex.com (If it works)<br /><br />There was also a failed attempt called conestoga.<br /><br />Delta IV and atlas V are designed and built by private companies also.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />"...pegasus..."<br /><br />you're right, but it is a toy in respect of what necessary to send an astronaut in orbit<br /><br /><br />"...Delta IV and atlas V..."<br /><br />all the spacecrafts makers are "private" (also the companies that build the Shuttle) but they need the money, experience and the contracts of NASA, ESA, USAF. etc. to build them... the can't do (and NEVER will do) big space programs alone... they already take great risks with commercial airplanes!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<font color="yellow">answers...</font><br /><br /><br />The Apollo missions provided the equivalent amount of experience as the early aeroplane pioneers pre 1910. <font color="yellow">right, but new lunar missions are THE SAME of Apollo (Griffin calls it "Apollo on steroid"... true! I agree!), it is like REBUILD the wright's airplain for commercial flights!!! also, NASA will not invent not any new revolutionary technology but will use already (and proven realiable) technologies, so, it will give NO quantum leap for to-day technology!!!</font>id we stay still and stop flying? Did people stop climbing Everest after Hillary and Norgay? <font color="yellow">because return to Everest don't costs $104 up billions!!!</font><br /><br />Insitu resource utillisation, building with lunar materials - all have flow ons to how we'll do it further out in the Cosmos. <font color="yellow">it is a good plan for the next century!</font><br /><br />Understanding is more than what is moon stuff, but also how the space environment affects biologicals - medical tech, how we can develop better and more efficient technologies for further expansions - their spinoffs for residents on Earth. Radiation shielding - physical, electromagnetic, etc. ETC. The list is endless...<font color="yellow">right, but 99% of these experiments can be made in orbit, it is unnecessary to spend 10 times more to do the same things on the moon!!!<br /><br />Do you want the "FINAL DEMONSTRATION" that come back to moon is completely USELESS???<br /><br />I have it:<br /><br />lunar missons ends in 1972, over 33 years ago!<br /><br />in the last 33 years, NASA, ESA, Russia, etc. have made DOZENS of great, complex and very expensive missions: ISS, Hubble, Shuttle, Cassini, Mars rovers, etc. (the list is very long)<br /><br />but, in 33 years no one of them have sent a "rover" on the moon, to explore, analyze, etc.<br /><br />the cost to build a lunar rover is very low (hundreds universities and</font>

 

[najab]

><i>...because return to Everest don't costs $104 up billions!!!</i><p>I'd be impressed by that argument if (a) $100B was really a lot of money. Remember, that's not $100B per year, that's $100B spread out over 10+ years - Americans spent much more than that every year on pet food; and (b) if that $100B was being put in a pit and burned. But it's not. That $100B is going to be spent by the Government to buy goods and services from American companies, employing American workers.</p>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...(a) $100B was..."<br /><br /><br />I know that it is NOT 104B$ per year, and I agree with you about pet foods, etc.<br /><br />I WANT that as much as money possible will be spent for research and, expecially, for space research, but NOT for USELESS things!<br /><br />Go again to moon to take the same rocks of Apollo is EXACTLY like BURN money!!!<br /><br />$104 billion are too much to do the same thing Tom Hanks as already made for IMAX...<br /><br />please, consider that, despite Americans spent much more than that every year on pet food, it is the ONLY extra-budget for NASA, so, if NASA spends that money for USELESS things (like lunar rocks) don't have money for MANY VERY USEFULL scientific and technological space (and earth) research!<br /><br /><br />"...American companies, employing American workers..."<br /><br />if you give them the same money as a gift (insteand of spend money for a dejavu travel) you may help TWICE companies, workers, homeless, etc... <br /><br /><font color="yellow">I've a suggestion...<br /><br />insted of spend so much money for manned lunar missions, spend less than $1 billion to send DOZENS of powerful, 3D camera, rovers on the moon and let they explore it PALM TO PALM, then, if rovers will find on the moon something of REALLY new and interesting (like the "black monolith" of 2001 Space Odyssey...), and if it can't be bring to earth with an automated vehicle, start build a manned spacecraft to take the "monolith"... <br /><br /><br /><br /></font>

 

[j05h]

>>"...pegasus..."<br /> />you're right, but it is a toy in respect of what necessary to send an astronaut in orbit <br /><br />I can't tell if it's the language barrier or you are just thick: you said no private company had built a small-sat launcher, someone else gives you the answer, you stumble with a "yeah, but..." reply. Pegasus is indeed a privately developed smallsat launcher, and there have been proposals to make a single-man capsule for a very rough ride on it. Get your facts straight, you are enthusiastic but don't seem willing to learn/change.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...Pegasus is indeed a privately..."<br /><br />I've simply forgotten it when I've written the answer... (it is so little...)<br /><br />but the problem remain... "proposed" is not "made" and "made" is not "launched"<br /><br />when a manned "private" spacecraft will (really) go in orbit???<br /><br />your answer:_______________<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">again, please give me "arguments" not angry comments. I've send some posts... but still I've not seen a list of useful (and realistic) things to do on the moon with a manned mission (that worth the money spent and can't be done in orbit or, on the moon, but with an automated vehicle... I wait...</font><br /><br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />when you remember me the Pegasus I've seen Orbital website<br /><br />well, it appear to me LESS "PRIVATE" THAN NASA!!!<br /><br />they works for military, NASA have helped them for the first Pegasus launch, the Taurus, Minotaur and Minotaur IV are "sponsored" (read!!!) by DARPA, U.S. Air Force and U.S. government!!!!!!!!<br /><br />Pentagon is more "private"!<br /><br />It is one of many companies that have big contracts (read: big funds) from NASA and USAF and, in the spare time, uses part of its technology to build some "private" rockets like Pegasus!<br /><br />"Private" means "with their own money" (like Virgin or Microsoft or HP) not "private" but with multi-billion dollars contract to build defense missiles and obtain (free) the experience to launch "private" rockets!!!<br /><br />If NASA or USAF will give to me (or to you) the same contracts, also WE can build such "private" rockets!!!<br /><br />