Our reactions to NASA's new spacecraft.

[darkenfast]

This editorial is like a dash of cold water. I think a lot of the critics who start with: "Why don't they just do ____", or "Why didn't they just build the X-______", should consider some of the thoughts expressed here. I was a big fan of the SSTO-Venture Star-X-____, and it would cheer me no end to see something like that fly. But, in the real world it ain't gonna happen. I do question some of the details of the editorial, and I am interested (for my education) in hearing what the engineers on this forum think. But, as regards his conclusion, I believe he has nailed it solid. <br />http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zy.html

 

[kane007]

Common sence and fiscal realision has finally prevailed.<br /><br /><font color="red">DO NO HARM</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Not another thread with that 'article'?<br /><br />The guy has some interesting factual information, but ruins it with "This is what I think" and "Those that don't, are..."<br /><br />And then throws stuff like this in:<br /><br /> />Clearly X-33/VS suffered from fundamental problems that were not connected with the composite tank failure that was the official reason for cancelling the program. In failed aerospace projects, a particular technical hitch is often made the scapegoat for systemic management and engineering problems that are too embarrassing for the funding agency to admit.<<br /><br />Which is BS. Someone needs to speak to the guy in the next post....<br /><br />Sorry, op-eds irrate the crap out of me <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[gofer]

I suspect you are referring to the whole plan not just the moon vehicle. Well, I don't know about others, but my (extremely negative) reaction to this plan is firstly economical -- far too much money for far too little. Even pre-overrun (color me cynical/or realistic) estimates of each of the pieces (the cev, the clv and the sdhlv) are way over the board for a supposedly "safe, simple, soon" off the shelf (as it's being advertised) hardware. <br /><br />Equally bad... this plan defines no tangible final rationale for this *transport architecture* The "we need money for these rockets and CSMs to fulfill President's vision to put men back on the moon by 2020" will only work for 3 more years. Then you gotta have something more substantial than 4 astros jumping about on the Moon and picking up 'interesting' rocks. <br /><br />There're many more objections on purely technical/architectural/program management grounds, but that will suffice... <br /><br />(btw, the editorial you linked to is by a well known anti human space exploration enthusiast, a self-admitted "recovering pro-space activist". I'm not sure if that's the crowd you want to be in... no offence. ) <br /><br />Perhaps NASA is just not capable of doing any better, so in that sense it may be the best plan.

 

[soccerguy789]

I like the new plan. Estimating 2 missions per year during the later years of base construction and what not, They will only be flying as much hardware as the shuttle did annually. Also, this system has way better reach and more cargo capacity, all for about the same mass to orbit as Apollo. This is a good idea. (I hope that the lunar lander becomes Reusable after they have an ISRU plant on site. Also, I like the Single EDS stage, unlike the beoing or lockheed designs.)

 

[gofer]

Compared to the shuttle (or the Apollo), any (and I do mean ANY) plan will look like an improvement. That's kind of a low target to shoot for, aint' it? You haven't said a thing about its absolute merits for the nation for its price, just the relative (to other equally bad programs) perceptions.<br /><br />(cue in the shuttle enthusiasts <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />)

 

[darkenfast]

Gofer, I've only been a member for a few days, and I apologize if this editorial has been done to death already, although I do believe it has relevence to our discussions regarding the proposals announced on 19 September. I just saw it for the first time today. <br /><br />First, regarding the "4 astros jumping about" argument, which seems to be a common idea among those who don't like this program, I think it's a bit of a "straw man" argument. If you look at the history of the Apollo landings, there is a huge increase in the amount accomplished on the surface between Apollo 11 and Apollo 17. As someone else has already pointed out, the first mission should log more man-hours on the surface than all the Apollos put together (I'm not sure about that, but it certainly will be a huge increase). Now, if your argument is that there is insufficient basis or need for scientific research on the Moon, then please tell me, and show me why. That's the kind of thing I am trying to learn. <br /><br />Second, having watched the space program for decades, and seen how much it costs, I'm not quite sure where your argument that these proposed vehicles are way too expensive comes from. Compared with what? What other man-rated systems offer better dollars-per-pound with the safety level that this one does? <br /><br />Third, I do see a rationale for this program. It is to: (a) keep us in space; (b) expand our exploration and research capability in an open-ended manner; and (c) drastically reduce the chances of another crew loss. By open-ended, I mean the progression from LEO to the Moon, then to Mars and so on. <br /><br />Fourth, I don't know anything about the writer of the editorial. I did say that I questioned some of his details, and I think he may have an ax to grind. But he did not strike me as "anti-space", just anti "space cadet", and I must admit to often being an enthusiastic cadet.<br /><br />Finally, you say that this may be the best plan because NASA is just n

 

[gofer]

1. No problem (re: Jeffrey :; ) <br /><br />2. On Apollo-17, only Harrison Shmitt was a professional geologist. There were (if I'm not mistaken) 400kg moved to Earth by the entire Apollo program. Most of it, AFAIK, is still sitting in the vaults (i.e. the scientists don't know what to do with the samples, or some have been stolen for resale value (some reports ?) ) dollars-per-pound as a metric is nonsense as long as a single launch costs exuberant amounts, The Saturn-5 ('low' dollars per pound) was done in because of that. 'Man-rated' is a pointless term in this day and age (and Dr. Griffin agrees, launching and insuring multi-hundred-million dollar cargoes is no less, perhaps more, responsible undertaking, you think they want to drop the expensive unmanned hardware?)<br /><br />The rest... (no offence to the folks) ... drove around in a buggy, threw some hummers and golf balls, and stuck a flag or two... said a speech, took some photos... for a $2.3+ *billion* dollars a pop, we did kick some commie arse back then didn't we? Do you think it's reasonable to repeat it now?<br /><br />Multiply that by 2 (as in the current plan) and what do you get... same thing, same utility. Are you familiar with the "big O" notation in math? Same thing.<br /><br />3. The $4.5 billion for the brand new CLV "stick" "based on the proven man-rated SRB with a new upper stage with proven man-rated engine, blah, blah" Too expensive.<br /><br />Compared with what? The *existing* *man-rated* *commercially-available* *cheaper*launchers (look at the spaceflightnow.com launch reports) <br /><br />You can tell I favor the Multiple Earth Orbit Rendezvous & Assembly (the more the better) Schemes on the existing rockets. We will *never* become space-faring if we keep trying to avoid orbit assembly (we can't anyway) That's for the architecture.<br /><br />Now, would not robotic devices be useful for *determining the rationale* (<--my biggest point) to fly men back to the Moon?<br /><br />You

 

[vt_hokie]

My reaction:<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=341431&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=

 

[toymaker]

Its Bell.He was disussed on the forums a couple of times.Takes things very personal. <br />I am still waiting on his article how to succesfully explore space.He promised to write it half a year ago <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[darkenfast]

Yes, only Schmidt was a geologist. NASA was very slow about letting scientists fly back in the sixties. But they had test pilots with graduate degrees in science and engineering who were trained by, and carried out their tasks on the moon under the direction of, lunar scientists. I don't quite understand this idea that what went on, especially during the later missions when confidence had been built up, was just "hitting golf balls" and the like. I also don't understand the hostility towards further research on the Moon. Yes, I would rather go to Mars, and if this were a dead-end Lunar program, I would be upset. But it is not. Griffin didn't say a lot about Mars, but what he said was very important. He said that they started at Mars and worked backwards. <br />I don't think any astronaut (or their families) would agree with your statement that "'Man-rated' is a pointless term. The political and social effects of the loss of a crew far exceed that of the most expensive satellite. The Soviets could (and did) ignore that during their day. We can't. <br />There is no commercially available, cheap, man-rated launcher that meets the requirements. <br />We do know how to assemble things in orbit. I've yet to see a piece of the ISS get delivered and not get connected. That doesn't make more launches of smaller rockets more effective. <br />We are obviously not going to agree on the usefulness or purpose of man in space.

 

[spacefire]

will this ever lift a payload going 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>

 

[spacefire]

then &%$#@! the Moon and let's go explore Mars!!! <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">then &%$#@! the Moon and let's go explore Mars!!!</font>/i><br /><br />This is part of what I was talking about earlier: the architecture described by Griffin does not provide a Lunar-only capability. It is destination agnostic.<br /><br />If by the 2008 or even 2012 presidential elections there is a groundswell of support to go to Mars first, then almost all of the NASA investment for the Moon would be just as useful for the Mars mission. No time lost. No dollars lost.</i>

 

[astrophoto]

Let's launch some rockets up there and move the ISS into Lunar orbit, then land it on the Moon. Instant Moon Base.

 

[7419]

I like the idea of the SRB based crew and lower mass cargo launch vehicle. It is expandable with the 5 segment booster in place of the 4 segment. But for the unmanned Saturn Class Cargo Launcher I personally think that the better way to go would of been with a side mounted cago pod. One reason it the ET would of needed no redesign plus most of the design work has already been done under the Shuttle C program. Plus vehicle integration in the VAB would be a lot simpler in that the well established vehicle handling proceures are well understood by the work force there. True we might of lost some cargo capacity but from the economic stand point given development costs which will rise (face it, its a given) the slight loss of overall lift capacity is IMO minor. Plus this would also leave open the option of the Aft Mounted Cargo Pod on the ET and any possible uses for the ET in LEO

 

[astrophoto]

It was more of a joke than anything, I figured the mass of propellant needed to lift the ISS into Lunar orbit and then descend is totally unfeasible. It would be something though, wouldn't it?

 

[frodo1008]

And exactly how is going back to the moon going to stop indivisuals from comamandeering comercial aircraft with such items as box cutters and then flying into tall buildings? For rhat matter how is this going to stop ANY kind of anti American insurgency anywhere in the world?<br /><br />At least when I argued with you in another thread I thought that you were at least rational, now I see and regret my error! You are absolutely NOT rational at all!!!

 

[lampblack]

So it would be essentially a lunar jungle gym. Sounds like fun! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

The major problem with the current plan that I can see is that there does not seem to be any kind of continuing space infrastructure to support long term stays on the moon. While the Apollo program was indeed a triumph for its time this was also one of the major problems with that program also. Wherner Von Braun realized this, and wanted to build such an infrastructure. <br /><br />With stations in both high LEO and low moon orbit, a true ferry system could be built that would go across the gap between the Earth and the moon. The vehicles for such a ferry system would NOT have to be streamlined, and therefore could be made up of the most efficient space type of craft (probably small spheres). These could be powered by some form of very efficient electrical ion type of drive. not very fast, but using very little fuel and oxixizer. Special landing craft could than be built up at such a moon station, and full support for far longer stays than just a week would become possible.<br /><br />With such an infrastructure, and an efficient and inexpensive craft to high LEO, we could not only far more totally explore the moon, we could even start to exploit its resouces also. I see no such infrastructure within this current plan. It does seem like some kind of super Apollo type of project. Perhaps I am missing something here? Am I?

 

[vt_hokie]

If we're going to stay on the moon for long periods of time, we need better radiation shielding than currently exists. Not only does it have to protect astronauts from the normal radiation environment, but also the much more severe environment following solar flares.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"How can congress refuse this plan when Russia, China, etc, are going to continue their manned space flight efforts? Huge loss of political, international, technical prestige to cancel and give up our lead."</i><br /><br />Do you think that any members of Congress might have a problem with replacing the shuttle with a capsule that lands by parachute just as the Russians are desiging a runway landing "space plane" to replace Soyuz?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Let's launch some rockets up there and move the ISS into Lunar orbit, then land it on the Moon. Instant Moon Base.</font>/i><br /><br />There is a lot of mass already up there around, and a controlled gentle landing on the moon with gravity for an object designed to be in zero-G... I don't know, I am picturing giant crushed soda cans on the Moon.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The major problem with the current plan that I can see is that there does not seem to be any kind of continuing space infrastructure to support long term stays on the moon.</font>/i><br /><br />I suspect the primary answer is that we (the public) haven't been told anything.<br /><br />The first mission to the Moon costs $100 billion. Later 6-month missions to the Moon should cost about $2 billion. The budget for manned exploration at that point should be about $8-10 billion. That leaves up to $6 billion per year for other activities.<br /><br />One possible strategy hinted at by Griffin is to land each Lunar mission near each other and leaving most of the lander behind for subsequent re-use. Perhaps one lander would be primarily habitat. The second lander would be a lab -- the crew for that lander would actually live in the habitat from the second lander. The third lander would be a workshop for fabricating equipment on the Moon -- once again, the crew would live in the habitat from the first lander and use the second lander as their lab. The fourth lander would be a greenhouse for food production -- the crew would live in the habitat from the first lander, study in the second lander, fix or modify equipment in the third lander, and grow fresh food in the fourth lander.<br /><br />Thus, by the end of the second year you have a colony with a habitat, lab, workshop, and greenhouse. The keys are (1) that each lander lands close to the others, (2) most of the lander remain behind for use by later missions, (3) each lander, while perhaps having the same external design, is specialized inside. Griffin has basically said (1) and (2), only (3) remains to be mentioned.</i>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Exactly!<br /><br />Griffin appears to be an excellent project engineer. It's all about priorities.<br /><br />Moonbase? Good idea. What do you need to build and sustain a moonbase? A heavy lift vehicle and a crew transportation vehicle. Gasp!