But we can only do what we can pay for. Thankfully, NASA has found a way to achieve manned missions to the Moon and hopefully Mars eventually IF the current level of funding is maintained. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
- Status
Well, I feel for you guys. But this old tired a$$, lowly Assistant Engineer type is plenty excited! I was sitting on a bunker in RVN when Apollo 11 touched down. I looked up and saw the moon had changed and wanted to be part of it. <br /><br />Age has taken me out of the game, but the concept still speaks to me as clearly as the the Von Braun - Bonestell books did when I was a kid. (By Spaceship to the Moon) Some illustrations from which, are my screen savers.<br /><br />I am dissapointed that I didn't get to be a part of the great adventure that is the moon. But that's lfe. I am not too jaded, and self-centered to whine about it and everything else that NASA does. High zuit razzle dazzle projects come and go in the research biz. At NASA I learned the great truth, that research is a war of inches. It is not like Star Trek or BSG or anything of that ilk. It's hard work, and some days you lose more ground than you gain. That is the nature of the beast we call research.<br /><br />More to the point... In one fell swoop NASA has taken the high frontier away from almost carnival side show antics of the "entrepreneurs" and put it on the moon. That is to say they have upped the ante.<br /><br />For their part they have put their (our) money into reliable transportation for going to and from the job site, by saying what have got, right now, that works. Or can be made to work with minimumal effort and expendature of cash. We also would do well to remember that despite all the carping (ad nausuim... from all sectors) the old Apollo ships are still the only spacecraft that have carried man to another world, and back with any kind of demonstrated safety record...at all. It has never been equaled.<br /><br />CEV is just the transportation to and from the work site...which happens to be the Moon. That is the challange, up there in the night sky. Not in LEO. We have to learn how to live, work and survive in space, so we can go to Mars.<br /><br />The task ahead is formidable, and if you
I was hoping for a design a bit more advanced than a simple capsule, but what we are looking at right now is NASA getting on the right track again. We took several steps forward with the shuttle,in the ways of reusability and all, but that wasn't in the right direction.
<i>"Money is tight. NASA can explore new technologies and go nowhere, not even LEO for the forseeable future, or it can use proven technologies to go reliably and often to LEO and to the Moon."</i><br /><br />Without investing in new technologies to make access to space more routine, and ultimately more like airline-type operations, we won't be going "reliably and often to LEO and the moon". That's the problem. This plan relegates us to a couple of flights a year, or maybe 3 or 4 flights at best, while simultaneously killing any dreams of a NASP type of vehicle development program. Heck, I don't think there's even enough money to keep X-43 going. <br /><br /><i>"Lucky for me NASA is in love with science too."</i><br /><br />If this were about science, we would be putting the bulk of our resources into more space based observatories, interplanetary probes, and robotic explorers like the Mars rovers. Not to mention, we would be increasing the amount of research done on the ISS, not gutting our life sciences programs in order to fund this "plant a flag on the moon" public relations stunt. <br /><br />The most disappointing thing about this new space policy is that it is designed to benefit existing contractors and is shaped largely by political considerations. It will continue to require a large portion of NASA's budget to support space shuttle launch system components, and so any hopes of advancing beyond that level of technology are effectively dead for probably another 30 years!
I am a young engineer fresh out of college but I feel I know quite a bit (certainly more than most engineers without advanced degrees) on topics such as spaceflight and aerodynamics (testing and theoretical) and turbine propulsion and I know quite a bit of structures too, though that's not my field of interest. I don't know that much about rockets, unfortunately I just havent'd dealt with them that much therefore I can't off the bad say whether a design is good or bad , expensive or practical, and so on.<br />Yet, just from common sense, I fail to get excited about NASAs proposal. Not because it doesn't explore new technologies, but because it's goals past trips to the moon are nebulous at best. <br />In the past I predicted the CEV requirements are going to change and they did. Now I predict this new lunar program is going to be cancelled altogether. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
"It should be the government's job, and NASA's job, to push the envelope and explore new technologies such as scramjet propulsion."<br />----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Um, I hate to brake it to ya, but they ARE doing that: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x43.htm (See the pretty NASA logo painted on the top.)<br /><br />Are you saying we shouldn't send people anywhere until we can do it in a fully operational scramjet powered booster? That's like telling Columbus to wait for steamships or jet airliners to be invented before trying to cross the Atlantic. What's wrong with using the technology we have already developed (at great expense) to continue our exploration?<br /><br />Who cares if Project constellation is a continuation of Apollo? Apollo SHOULD have been continued, and it would have if Nixon had not been such a vindictive a$$. No one else has been back to the moon. Why not complete our original plans? <br /><br />VT, please quit engineering now. I would hate to think I'm flying on a plane or crossing a bridge, or driving a car designed by someone who only cares about making money!
<i><font color="yellow">"Um, I hate to brake it to ya, but they ARE doing that: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/x43.htm (See the pretty NASA logo painted on the top.)"</font>/i><br /><br />It's my understanding that X-43 is one of many worthwhile programs that lack funding to continue, thanks to the tremendous cost of shuttle, ISS, and now "VSE".<br /><br /><i><font color="yellow">"Are you saying we shouldn't send people anywhere until we can do it in a fully operational scramjet powered booster? That's like telling Columbus to wait for steamships or jet airliners to be invented before trying to cross the Atlantic. What's wrong with using the technology we have already developed (at great expense) to continue our exploration?"</font>/i><br /><br />I guess there has to be a balance. Unfortunately, NASA won't find that balance as long as it spends the bulk of its funding on maintaining existing systems. If this moon program eats up the bulk of NASA's spaceflight budget, there will never be money to even pursue a modest follow on to X-43, much less embark on an ambitious X-30/NASP type of program. There was a time when we would be willing to embark on a challenging, groundbreaking program and explore new technology. Now, we're stuck with maybe 2 to 4 flights a year to the moon starting in 2018, if we're lucky, because of a tragic lack of vision and willingness to accept risk.<br /><br /><i><font color="yellow">"Apollo SHOULD have been continued"</font>/i><br /><br />Agreed, but it's too late to undo that damage now. Let's at least learn a lesson and not abandon ISS only to start over at ground zero the same way we killed our momentum with Apollo in order to shift directions entirely. All of the major components for ISS are completed and those not in orbit are waiting for launch. Let's at least make sure we accept the small incremental cost (relative to what's been spe</i></i></i>
SpaceX is planning to go to the moon. Next 12 years? Maybe. The good news is that SpaceX's budget is capable of growth which means they can start, develop and perfect new technology at paces that NASA could only dream of. Example, the company has only been in existence for a few years and they are already to launch Falcon 1 in the next few weeks with plans for a 50,000+ lbs launcher in the next couple of years! In fact, Elon Musk's initial purpose for starting SpaceX was to colonize Mars and those dreams have not been forgotten. They are planning manned exploration and I don't think it would be too much of a stretch to say that the private sector might beat NASA to the moon. Why? Because there is money to be made! Don't count out SpaceX, SpaceDev and the rest of the new space entrepeneurs, they get results and they get paid for doing it.<br /><br />SLJ
I try to be optimistic in general about life, but I gotta tell ya, when I saw the "artist's conception" pics for our brand-new 21st century moon program, I got a knot in my stomach. <br /><br />I am quite positive that some good will come out of this program if it somehow avoids cancellation (anyone remember the partly-completed supercollider?). But I am saddened that we will be essentially revisiting the past with our rocket technology. Heck, why not save a few more dollars by raiding our museums?<br /><br />Ideally, this will just be an intermediate stage while we continue to develop more imaginative solutions (re-usable vehicles, mass-driver, laser lift, and other flights of fancy), but judging how NASA clung so tenaciously to the shuttle program, I wonder ...<br /><br />I guess this is turning into a rant, so I will give you all a break and stop now. Btw, this is my first post and I am actually a medical professional though I have always been an avid fan of space exploration. I guess we should all try to stay positive and contribute in whatever ways we can...
As an aspiring old fogie I think you have the right perspective on this and the young hot heads have got to open their wallets and take a look at what's inside before spouting off about living the high life. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
well said hokie!<br /><br />The way the US space program is going, dreams are indeed wasted, best thing for us engineers is to worry about ourselves right now, maybe get into management or consulting and make the big bucks and be able to actually make decisions rather than having to listen to mentally inferior corporate rats. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
I'm also very interested in the new lander but I suspect that little about it has been decided yet, and the "artist's conception" probably won't bear much resemblance to the real thing.
I'm also for putting humans on the moon. In fact, I want to see us do more than put just 4 humans on the moon a couple of times per year! That's why we need to open up access to low earth orbit with a full fledged X-30/NASP or X-33/VentureStar type of program. Once we make access to space cheaper and more routine, then we will be able to do more than just re-create Apollo with some minor improvements! <br /><br />I like the idea of separating our heavy lift capability from our crew transport capability, and the one aspect of this new plan that I would retain is the "Shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle" (although I don't like the idea of throwing away expensive hardware like the SSME's on each launch). But for crew transport, I want to see the vision of affordable, reusable space planes be realized. Every time I look at that damn capsule thing sitting on top of the SRB, it just disgusts me to see us going back to the "parachute back to Earth in a tin can" approach to spaceflight.
Yes, and when we have warp drive, we will fly across the galaxy in a single episode. Meanwhile, back in the real world, we are going to have a spacecraft that is more than just "minor" improvements on Apollo. Stop being sidetracked by the external shape and the escape tower. It is not Apollo. None of the SSTO designs showed any signs of the capability that this combination of two launch vehicles will have. Someday we will have an SSTO, but for right now we have to stop dithering and get something done. NOBODY is going to build your SSTO re-usable Space Plane right now, because it isn't feasable. We cannot put manned spaceflight on hold while we wait for the breakthroughs that will make it feasable. The best case for the transition from the STS to the CEV still involves a two-year gap, in spite of the use of STS-derived components. Trying for an SSTO after the Shuttle retires would mean a much longer wait, a much higher expense and a much greater risk. It just isn't going to happen.<br />
<i><font color="yellow">"Yes, and when we have warp drive, we will fly across the galaxy in a single episode."</font>/i><br /><br />Not if we spend all our money supporting a jobs program to keep building and operating antiquated shuttle hardware! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><i><font color="yellow">"Someday we will have an SSTO"</font></i><br /><br />Not if we keep saying, "That's too hard, leave it for somebody else to figure out in the future." <br /><br /><i><font color="yellow">"We cannot put manned spaceflight on hold while we wait for the breakthroughs that will make it feasable."</font>/i><br /><br />This is a fair point. I agree that it's not feasible to keep the space shuttle flying forever, so we do need an interim "safe, simple, soon" solution, to borrow ATK's jargon. But if we're going to embark on a new program using existing technology that will eat up practically the entire budget, much as shuttle and ISS have done, there won't be any money left to even begin work toward better technologies for the future.<br /><br /><i><font color="yellow"> Trying for an SSTO after the Shuttle retires would mean a much longer wait, a much higher expense and a much greater risk. It just isn't going to happen. </font>/i><br /><br />I never thought SSTO was going to happen any time soon, even when I worked on X-33. But I did think that we would see a fully reusable two-stage launch system that could reduce launch costs significantly. That's well within our technical capability. <br /><br />I think a very modest, affordable proposal would be to build a small "space plane" for crew transport based on something like Boeing's X-37. It could initially be launched on an EELV or even NASA's "SRB stick" launch vehicle, but could easily be launched by fully reusable vehicles down the road when they become available. And you could still land on a runway, instead of regressing to the primitive landing techniques of Soyuz an</i></i></i>
Dear ol' Michael Griffin was fairly up-front Monday about the fact that what he's proposing isn't so much about grand vision as it is about putting in place basic infrastructure.<br /><br />After the infrastructure is in place, everything else becomes a possibility.<br /><br />We all want to see a permanent manned (and/or womaned) presence on the moon -- possibly at a polar base. But before that can happen, we gotta have a way to get there. First things first.<br /><br />**** From Spacefire ****<br /><br />Yet, just from common sense, I fail to get excited about NASAs proposal. Not because it doesn't explore new technologies, but because it's goals past trips to the moon are nebulous at best. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
Yeah, I've kinda gotten the faint impression that you're not real fond of parachutes. I think you and I are just going to have to disagree on this. When we have the breakthrough that allows an SSTO, then I would love to see wings again, for LEO only. But I guess I don't see the blunt capsule/heatshield/parachute option as being any more primitive than using wings (an aircraft item) on a spacecraft. They both impinge on the vehicles ability to function as a spacecraft, and so you make your best choice, balancing that impingement with what you need to happen on landing. The lifting body proposals I've seen, while lowering the G's somewhat, require moving the couches, something I would not want to do during an abort resulting in a very high-G re-entry (as has happened with Soyuz). In other words: they are a "worst of both types" (meaning winged vs. blunt-body), because they still require parachutes (or ram-air para-wings). Of course, if the accuracy of the CEV landings is so bad that they have to resort to splashdowns most of the time, it will be a big strike against the parachute system. But honestly, being a coward, I would rather fly on the CEV; with Soyuz being second, STS third, and the Chinese "Soyuz on Steroids" fourth.
<font color="yellow">putting in place basic infrastructure</font><br />The Shuttle was all about putting basic inftastructure in LEO...look how well that worked 
<br />NASA should make up their mind: "Cheap LEO and we'll see from then on", or "Go somewhere and colonize".<br />Right now its neither. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<br />NASA should make up their mind: "Cheap LEO and we'll see from then on", or "Go somewhere and colonize".<br />Right now its neither. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div><The Shuttle was all about putting basic inftastructure in LEO...look how well that worked <<br /><br />Yeah, very well. What's your point?
<<br /><br />Yeah, very well. What's your point?> <i><font color="yellow">NASA should make up their mind:</font>/i><br /><br />NASA does not set policy, the President and (to a lesser extent) Congress do.<br /><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">"Cheap LEO and we'll see from then on", or "Go somewhere and colonize"</font>/i><br /><br />You can't do the latter without doing the former first. The shuttle could not put up enough mass nor do it cheaply enough to enable a beyond LEO capability.<br /><br />I am certain that NASA in general and Griffin in particular have numerous visions, many probably very detailed, about what to do beyond 2018. But as said before, it is not NASA's position to set national policy by declaring what the nation will do. Furthermore, there are many unknowns right now (what will LRO find, what will the Lunar rovers find, etc.), and to pull the trigger too soon and tie NASA's and the nation's hands for the next 20 years with a poorly chosen plan because of lack of knowledge would be foolish.<br /><br /><br />Still...<br /><br />I would love for NASA to set up a "Vision Competition" with four classes: K-12, College, Commercial, and Open. The "Vision Competition" is about developing a video showing how the newly proposed vehicles would be used in the development of a new vision beyond 2018.<br /><br />The videos would be judged on a number of factors (perhaps each with an award category), including how technically sound the vision is, how inspiring the vision is, and how viable the vision is (e.g., including economic factors).<br /><br />The K-12 and College classes are obviously restricted to students. The Commercial class would be for companies such as Boeing and t/Space. And the Open category is for individuals and amateurs.<br /><br />With 3D modeling, audio recording, and video production tools all free or moderately inexpensive, this could be a lot of fun for a lot of people. I could envision everything from South Park style entries to movie studio quality videos bein</i></i>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
What time is the NASA Parker Solar Probe's closest sun flyby ever on Christmas Eve?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram