New Mars Forums

This is an interesting quote:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04s.html]Link

Frankly, the more we argue SDV vs EELV, the more I am coming to the belief it is six of one, half dozen of another.  :;):

= = =

Okay, EELV[plus] can get fairly large but is that included within the VSE budget or is that a post-2020 "possibility"

My daugher, when she was 3 1/2 used the word "possibility" - - astonished, I asked her what she thought "possibility" meant.

"Daddy, when a baby asks for a Christmas present and her mommy and daddy say 'maybe' - - well then its a possibility she will get it"

A 45MT - 50MT EELV for $200 million might be possible IF we order sufficient volume. And ONLY if we order sufficient volume.

= = =

Back to the petty differences. The real question is how to assure we order sufficient launch volume.

12-18 50MT EELV+ flying per year would be acceptable to me.

Edited By BWhite on 1111348370

Its all in the bean counting. No reason to be personal. ???

Today Delta IVH has flown once with a capability of 25MT for about $200 million. Everything else remains on paper.

=IF= your number hold true, GCNRevenger =THEN= you are correct.

But that is what makes it a nasty dilemma, no?

= = =

The base level Shuttle C can fly about 75 - 80 MT without upgrade per astronautix. (77,000 kg several years ago - is that with the painted tank?) No 5 segment SRBs and no RL-60 upper stage on an in-line version.

Upgrade the SRBs for a higher fuel/mass ratio and add an RL-60 upper stage and SDV ends up being very much more than 80MT.

= = =

In round figures, do we need 2, 2 1/2 or 3 EELV to lift as much as 1 SDV?

If you can use slushed hydrogen and lithium alloy and RL-60s for EELV then you must also include those upgrades within the SDV calculations.

These are questions of accountancy not emotion.

Edited By BWhite on 1111347572

The math appears to boil down to flight rate assumptions.

If we do not fly SDV at a high enough rate, then EELV probably will be less expensive per pound. But will an EELV-only VSE have a high enough flight rate to maintain public support?

Will an EELV-only VSE make accomplishments fast enough to actually do anything meaningful?

SDV offers the hope of a much lower cost expansion of the VSE when (or if) public support develops. If 12 - 18 SDV launches happened every year, then the cost per pound plummets as the fixed employee base is amortized over a higher number of launches.

In other words, SDV has a higher cost at very low flight rates but allows for a much less expensive ramping up or acceleration of flight rates. Destroying SDV infrastructure means that a genuinely robust space program is off the table for a generation, or more.

If we do that, I predict that what public interest there is in space exploration will plummet and our ability to generate future interest will be much diminished.

Edited By BWhite on 1111337057

Nah, the religious right is not gaining http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=h … ]influence because of Republican ascendancy.

You evolution loving, non-evangelical types have NOTHING to worry about, except the social ostracism of your children if you teach them evolution.

Thank God I live in a blue state. Evolution is not shunned here.

In January of 2004 George Bush announced the VSE.

Why return to the Moon? To begin a process of exploration that will lead to human presence throughout the Solar System.

Why the Moon first? Close and easy access for practice and the Moon has resources that can be leveraged for future missions.

Maybe I agree and maybe not but this course has been set. Fair enough.

However, if we remain consistent with this logic, unless our return to the Moon includes immediate deployment of ISRU, it is merely an Emperor's New Clothes undertaking. A pretend space program to help beltway bandits "feel good."

I submit that the very first human mission to return to the Moon should use lunar LOX to assist with its return to Earth. Of course, a reserve of Terran LOX should be carried, just in case, but the symbolism of using lunar LOX from the very beginning cannot be over emphasized.

The Moon is a waste of time UNLESS we are using it merely to practice OR we begin resource exploitation from the very beginning.

Please show the math. . .

= = =

PS - - Both the Aldridge Commission and the Planetary Society concluded the VSE needs heavy lift. If they are wrong, explain how they made that error.

= = =

PPS - - Neither commission can be accused (IMHO) of being Zubrin-loving kool aid drinkers. :;):

Edited By BWhite on 1111260812

More money helps. 

Return to the Moon doesn't really start until 2011, so its really only 9 years between 2011 and 2020.  Collecting $10 billion in media sales for return to the Moon adds over $1 billion per year to the exploration budget.

$10 billion for selling media rights for humanity's return to the Moon would pay for HLLV deployment and facilitate public commitment to the VSE.

My problem with an all EELV lunar return is that we will have so little in tangible accomplishment that maintaining public interest will be difficult or impossible.

If the VSE cannot attain take-off speed, and sustain public interest it is doomed. Wingo's idea, to mine the moon to fight pollution and grow the global economy, for all humanity's benefit would have broad traction, at least IMHO.

With all EELV it is darn hard to even pretend the Moon will offer commercial benefits within our lifetimes.

Voice of the narrator: A data archive has just been located, filled with Kirk-Spock fan fiction, of the nancy-boy variety. . .

Please continue as you all deem appropriate.

Re-read this thread from the beginning.  Lots of interesting stuff.

Co-pro-consul consultation in progress. . .

Ward Churchill is a nut-job used by the Right to smear everyone to the Left of Mussolini. :;):

He is best ignored.

Lets not shift the goalposts.

Griffin said returning to the Moon without robust heavy lift is silly. SDV is only one HLLV option. If SDV cannot be done within our budget and if no other HLLV is within our budget then attempting to return to the moon with an insufficient budget is silly.

- - -

Unless we are returning to the Moon to open it up for commerce, I do not agree that the science only justifies the expense and I strongly prefer Mars. Lunar commerce, as proposed by Wingo? Sure, I support that 100%

Once again, take permanent settlement off the table (with resource exploitation being part of "settlement") and I strongly favor robots only for pure science driven exploration.

Therefore unless crewed missions bring us closer to permanent settlement, I believe they are a waste of tax dollars.

LOX extraction is job #1 for a lunar return as it will give the biggest "bang" in economic return of any lunar resource program. If it is not part of the first mission, why pay for the first mission at all?