NASA 2006 Budget

Dook · 2005-05-13 11:20:42

Sometimes you argue, just for the sake of arguing.

What lunar program am I assassinating? This CEV you want so much? You want to build a moon base with a CEV? Testing and using Mars Direct hardware on the moon is the best, most efficient way to achieve the Presidents VSE. We can't use the CEV to get to mars so we will need a huge redesign of space hardware to do that mission.

80%?? Sigh...even if you need 20% rocket fuel-HOW IS THIS DOUBLE LOGISTICS MODULE give it to you on the moon? Does this DLM give a crew oxygen? Food? CO2 removal? How is it going to land on the moon? How is the crew going to use this to launch from the moon to get home? Mars Direct hardware has all of that covered.

If it takes more than 8 flights to finish the ISS then that would be included in future years budgets but for 2006 I think a $2.4 billion limit on shuttle flights would be necessary so we can put $9 billion toward building Moon/Mars Direct hardware.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-13 11:42:14

I'm not talking about the logistics module imparticularly, I am talking about your false statement that producing the majority of your propellants on the Moon is impossible. It clearly is, and it almost as easy as it would be on Mars with a little equipment.

And yes, the CEV is the ideal choice for a Lunar program. MarsDirect, even if it would work (which I will touch on shortly), is all the wrong size for the job. The biggest and unavoidable problem with using MD for the Moon is that it is too big, much too big, to afford a persistant presence on the Moon. The nessesity of buying a brand new ERV and a brand new HAB and a pair of the biggest SDV rockets practical for every single flight would preclude NASA ever having any money to go to Mars with unless it simply abandoned the Moon. A small Lunar vehicle is a nessesity, one that is inexpensive and practical to reuse; the CEV system can do this, but MarsDirect cannot.

Then there is the problem that MarsDirect in and of itself will never work without radical (and expensive) alteration... Oh, and the fact that it is too small for efficent Mars travel. Its the worst of both worlds... literally.

This DLM module would be just about perfect as the other half of the pressurized volume for Boeing's Lunar lander though.

Get the Shuttle bill down to $2.4Bn? Impossible, not unless you axed a large part of The Army and eliminated all non-vehicle costs from the program (reassign them elsewhere), which is just a book-keeping sleight of hand.

BWhite · 2005-05-13 12:12:48

Time out!

Zubrin's plan (which Dook likes for the Moon) is premised on using lunar oxygen (which Dook says is fantasy). Zubrin's lunar plan is premised on lunar LOX from the beginning!

GCNRevenger says "yup" lunar fuel (at least the LOX oxidizer) is very feasible but we don't need it, at least to start.

Me? I agree and disagree with both of you!

Edited By BWhite on 1116008033

Dook · 2005-05-13 12:26:23

I didn't say producing propellants on the moon was impossible. The argument I was making was that Mars Direct hardware used on the moon is better than using a double logistics module because even if you did land a DLM on the moon IT wouldn't be able to make rocket fuel. Also considering that it would have to be altered so it could actually land on the moon, and rocket itself from earth orbit to the moon, it probably wouldn't fit in the space shuttle anyway.

I'm sure we can design and build the CEV for the moon at less cost than a complete set of Mars Direct hardware BUT the CEV isn't easily adapted to a mars mission (if MD is too small then CEV is WAY too small) whereas MD is rather easily adapted (replace the mars CO2 in-situ system with a moon lunar regolith rocket fuel in-situ) to moon missions.

With the modification of the dry ascent vehicle (add a heat shield) it could suffice as a lunar launch to get a crew home from mars without the need for a NASA DRM style ERV. It's small, Apollo like, but should be fine for 3 days from the moon. The dry ascent vehicle could even be modified so that it serves as a crew landing vehicle as well, lighten it by not including the in-situ plant once we have two operational ones on the moon.

A pressurized rover is included in MD and would be for the first moon mission, sending another would likely not be necessary, just include some repair parts if needed.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-13 12:28:57

Prometheus, ISS Research Cuts Help Pay for Shuttle and Hubble Repair Bills

More of the revised budget info:

NASA sent Congress a revised spending plan for 2005 that would significantly cut the Project Prometheus nuclear power and propulsion program, cancel a host of international space station-based biological and physical research activities, and postpone some space science missions, including two advanced space telescopes and a Mars science lander slated to launch in 2009.
The cuts were necessary, according to NASA, to pay the remaining $287 million tab for preparing the space shuttle for its return to flight, to make a substantial down payment on a potential Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission, to accommodate $400 million worth of special projects that lawmakers added to NASA’s budget last year, and to cover larger than predicted bills for a variety satellite projects being prepared for launch.

Here is the kicker thou for the CEV:

Money for the Crew Exploration Vehicle, meanwhile, would remain untouched at $421.9 million for the year, even though NASA has said it intends to accelerate the program in order to minimize any gap between retiring the shuttle in 2010 and fielding the new system. NASA is still evaluating its options for accelerating the program, but has already announced that it intends to pick the contractor it wants to build the system in early 2006 instead of late 2008.

Edit found Nasa budget request for 2006.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-13 12:56:00

I didn't say producing propellants on the moon was impossible. The argument I was making was that Mars Direct hardware used on the moon is better than using a double logistics module because even if you did land a DLM on the moon IT wouldn't be able to make rocket fuel. Also considering that it would have to be altered so it could actually land on the moon, and rocket itself from earth orbit to the moon, it probably wouldn't fit in the space shuttle anyway.
I'm sure we can design and build the CEV for the moon at less cost than a complete set of Mars Direct hardware BUT the CEV isn't easily adapted to a mars mission (if MD is too small then CEV is WAY too small) whereas MD is rather easily adapted (replace the mars CO2 in-situ system with a moon lunar regolith rocket fuel in-situ) to moon missions.
With the modification of the dry ascent vehicle (add a heat shield) it could suffice as a lunar launch to get a crew home from mars without the need for a NASA DRM style ERV. It's small, Apollo like, but should be fine for 3 days from the moon. The dry ascent vehicle could even be modified so that it serves as a crew landing vehicle as well, lighten it by not including the in-situ plant once we have two operational ones on the moon.
A pressurized rover is included in MD and would be for the first moon mission, sending another would likely not be necessary, just include some repair parts if needed.

But it could, an ISRU plant is not that big or heavy. The DLM would be a part of a lander vehicle which should have enough payload for such a device, and it would be within the payload capacity of Shuttle or Delta-IV HLV (basic) or single-barrel Atlas-VB (improved). Not that you would want to use Shuttle as a cargo hauler.

It is irrelivent if MarsDirect can be modified to land on the Moon, because even if it could, the simple fact remains that each mission will cost too much. Its not about the development costs, its about the operational costs, which must be low in order to sustain a Lunar presence AND go to Mars simultainiously. MarsDirect has no options for a different size, no reuseability, and very poor safety (crew escape?). These are all fatal characteristics for using the basic MD arcitecture for a Lunar base.

The thing about NASA DRM's ERV that you don't understand is that it is non-negotiable: the little pathetic "pointy beer-can" ERV that Zubrin wants for MarsDirect is obviously impractical for even four men for the entire return from Mars. DRM's ERV is also the one thing that gives the system a possible upgrade path, which MarsDirect lacks. It doesn't matter if Zubrin's ERV would work for the Moon or not, its useless for Mars.

Dook · 2005-05-13 14:27:40

You argue that it is better to go to the moon now, on the cheap, and spend much more later to redesign whole new architecture for mars missions. I am arguing that with some modifications, relatively minor ones, Mars Direct can work on the moon.

I will concede that using MD for the moon is more expensive than developing moon only hardware, but you should also concede that the future redesign or likely start from scratch design costs for going to mars will be even more than my plan. Also with my plan the equipment is tested and improved over the course of many moon missions, the habitat is larger than the CEV, and we will have a true heavy lift rocket (Ares or some equal) to use for other uses. How many ISS modules could it put in place with one launch?

I don't have The Case for Mars book handy at the moment so I don't know what the cost for continuing Mars Direct missions is.

Here is my plan for using NASA DRM hardware for the moon, it's trimmed down from before:
Series of Launches
#1 Launch unmanned moon in-situ rocket propellant/dry ascent stage (dry ascent stage modified with a heat shield and enough fuel for home) on an Ares type rocket, if moon landing goes well then proceed with #2.
#2 Launch a manned moon/mars habitat with pressurized rover.
Crew tests pressurized vehicle on the moon and checks out the in-situ propellant machine.
#3 The crew launches from the moon in the fueled dry ascent vehicle and returns home to the earth.

Now on the moon we would have one in-situ LOX propellant machine and one large habitat. And we would have performed a real test of some of the equipment for a mars mission.

For additional moon missions I would probably launch one more in-situ rocket propellant with a crew using the dry ascent stage rover as the crew vehicle for landing and launching from the moon. This use of the in-situ propellant lander/dry ascent vehicle would be heavier than the planned use in MD so the Ares type rocket would have to be slightly larger than planned.

I never said to NOT use NASA's DRM orbiting ERV for mars, what I said was we could test it for the moon if we wanted to but it's not really necessary since we can use the dry ascent stage to land and leave the moon and it would be large enough (like Apollo) and sufficient (if it has a heat shield added) to get from the moon to earth.

Dook · 2005-05-13 15:12:41

A comparison of MD costs by NASA, the ESA, and Zubrin.

Development and first mission cost is:
NASA $39 billion
ESA $26.5 billion
Zubrin $29 billion
This cost would be spread out over a number of years.

Second mission cost:
NASA $7 billion
ESA $5.2 billion
Zubrin $3 billion

Now these are for missions using full Mars Direct hardware so the costs would be significantly less for using this hardware for the moon because we don't need the ERV and we don't need two habitats on the moon prior to manned launch.

Depending on how much cheaper the moon missions actually turned out to be we might not be able to go to the moon and mars in the same year.

So we could then spend a year or two going to the moon, then go to mars. No major redesign needed, hardware already tested, and no more time wasted.

http://www.marssociety.org/docs....ct]http://www.marssociety.org/docs/MDCost.pdf#search='the%20cost%20of%20mars%20direct']http://www.marssociety.org/docs....ct'

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-13 20:50:32

As Bill is fond of saying over and over, you build your hardware according to your needs. In this case, the functionality of the hardware we need for Lunar and Martian programs are so different, that trying to make one set of hardware do both is impractical.

And what functions? You seem very set on sacrificing any future Lunar presence to save a buck on getting to Mars... There is enough justification for a long-term Lunar presence, but if we are to do that and afford to go to Mars, then the development costs are much less important then the operational cost. Let me stress that again, yes it does cost more to develop, but that isn't as important as it not breaking the bank to operate.

To go to the Moon to stay, it is imperitive that the per-sortie costs be held low, which in turn demands smaller/fewer launch vehicles, reuseability, and safety; safety because with a large number of missions, the risk of failure is more important than with only a few. MarsDirect requires the very largest practical model of a Shuttle-Derived launch vehicle, which will be very expensive and not safe enough for manned launch dozens of times. Its not even safe enough for any number of missions in my opinion (no launch escape!).

NASA DRM calls for smaller SDVs to be used in pairs, which is also too expensive for 2-3 annual Lunar missions, and is grossly overkill to build a huge HAB for a crew that will only need it for a few days. I should note, that since it is NOT a direct launch to Mars like MD, the crew could be sent seperatly with a safer CEV launch.

Nor is building and bringing a new HAB module on every mission an acceptable option, an outpost will naturally be reuseable, and radically reduce operations cost that way. Neither the MD nor DRM ERV/MAV vehicles can be respectively reuseable either if they directly deliver the return capsule to Earth for landing.

However, reuseability makes no sense until we have such a base, and in order to set one up efficently that means maximum payloads for early missions even if that involves expendable vehicles, but thats okay if we aren't trying to go to Mars at the same time. But, NASA still has limited money to work with, and since the environment and travel time are the same, it makes sense to develop an expendable system (like VSE) with a future path to reuseability.

For Mars, the fact that the MD ERV launches directly also precludes any reuse later on for the Moon just like Mars.

And for Mars, if we want to do more then visit Mars and stay in cooped up HABs, we will also need money to develop means of expanding a Martian base and its capabilities. In order to do that, we will have to minimize the operational costs just like on the Moon... and that means maximum payload early on, and transitioning to reuseability just like on the Moon. However, since Mars is so much further away and so environmentally different, the Mars ships will by nessesitty be much larger and powerful then Lunar ones. The differences between a three-day hop in a CEV capsule to a 6mo sorjun to Mars are so different, that you can't really adapt one system to do both the Moon and Mars.

I am not thrilled about the idea of requiring a surface crew transfer from the lander to the acent vehicle on the Moon... the surface of the Moon is a much less hospitable place then Mars.

As far as other details...
-A Lunar ISRU plant will be completly different then a Martian one
-Building a new ISRU plant and nuclear reactor for every mission is not acceptable long-term
-You can't make Ares any bigger then 120MT without a heavy (SSME sized) nuclear engine
-Number of ISS modules launched by HLLV is irrelivent, since an HLLV exsists to launch big things, not little things

BWhite · 2005-05-13 21:32:41

As Bill is fond of saying over and over, you build your hardware according to your needs.

Since I only know one rule of design - - form follows function - - I use it often. :;):

Dook · 2005-05-14 13:16:25

Yes, with my plan we save on future development but spend more for both moon and mars operations. The estimates for continued Mars Direct missions range from $3 to $7 billion, and that is the big 'if'. If we can't continue for under $6 billion then we could not sustain both the moon and mars until we finally retire the shuttle. If the ISS is completed by the year we start this, 2013, hopefully it is, then that would be an additional $2.4 billion towards this Moon/Mars Direct idea.

We definately don't need a large hab launched to the moon each time. Launch one manned hab with pressurized vehicle, launch an in-situ/dry ascent lander, the crew comes home in dry ascent vehicle. Next launch the crew goes to the moon IN the dry ascent vehicle and returns in the same dry ascent vehicle. The dry ascent vehicle is basically an Apollo type capsule and simply needs a heat shield added.

We don't need an ERV for the moon.

The surface crew transfer on the moon is the least concern, in my opinion. Why would we go to the moon just to stay inside anyway? We would test out the pressurized vehicle and walk around getting regolith samples and check out the in-situ plant...

Lunar ISRU different, sure, so? Launch it on the same framework as the in-situ for mars. We don't need a new ISRU for every mission. I would put two on the moon and two on mars. As far as the nuclear reactors...yes, they might not still be operational when we return each time. Perhaps solar systems would be a better choice.

Larger Ares? I'm not sure we really need it to be larger. The heaviest launch would be the second moon in-situ/dry ascent vehicle (with heat shield) and crew. If this is too heavy for one Ares then divide it into two parts, launch in-situ, then launch the manned dry ascent vehicle.

Also for the moon launches only the dry ascent vehicle would be launched so they would be much cheaper than a whole MD. Also if we could sell some of our ISS time and sell 2 or 3 crew spots on the moon and mars missions then I'm sure we could do it.

I think we could meet this schedule:

2013 launch to the moon an unmanned in-situ/dry ascent lander
2013 launch a manned moon habitat with pressurized rover, crew returns in dry ascent vehicle
2014 make improvements to hardware
2015 launch to mars in-situ/dry ascent lander
2016 launch to moon another in-situ/dry ascent lander, this time manned, crew returns in dry ascent vehicle
2018 launch second in-situ/dry ascent lander to mars
2018 launch ERV and manned mars habitat

At some point we may indeed have to sacrifice one for the other. Maybe the platinum on the moon will turn out to be too tough to extract? Maybe we will find out that life could have never existed on mars and that it is impossible to terraform?

Dook · 2005-05-14 13:53:44

The hardware:

Moon Missions
ISRU/dry ascent lander-This vehicle carries the in-situ rocket propellant manufacturing machine that takes in moon regolith and uses stored hydrogen to make oxygen and methane. The crew leaves the moon in the dry ascent vehicle modified with heat shield that is above the in-situ plant. After the first moon mission delivers the habitat the dry ascent vehicle is used to land a crew on the moon and launch from the moon.

Moon/Mars Habitat with pressurized vehicle-This craft is the Zubrin hab. It serves as the first manned moon mission vehicle and has enough food supplies for four people to eat for 800 days (same as Mars Direct). The pressurized vehicle is also carried beneath this habitat. Only one needed on the moon.

Mars Direct
ISRU/dry ascent lander-This vehicle carries the in-situ rocket propellant manufacturing machine that takes in mars CO2 and uses stored hydrogen to make oxygen and methane. The crew leaves mars in the dry ascent vehicle that is above the in-situ plant, no heat shield on this dry ascent vehicle.

Moon/Mars Habitat with pressurized vehicle-This craft is the Zubrin hab. It serves as the first manned moon mission vehicle and has enough food supplies for four people to eat for 800 days (same as Mars Direct). The pressurized vehicle is also carried beneath this habitat.

Earth Return Vehicle (ERV)-Launched from the earth this vehicle assumes an orbit around mars and docks with the dry ascent vehicle that launches from mars with the crew. The ERV then blasts off for home.

Simple. Use the same rocket to launch all of this, Ares or something similar. Only slight differences between the hardware for the moon and mars. Development costs greatly reduced, savings of up to 10 years, but operational costs would be higher than going to the moon only.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-05-14 14:46:28

NASA have been great in the past, they have done some of the most wonderful and fantastic missions

but things are looking messy lately

Ulysses is under threat but the Euros may keep their side going on ESA work, the NASA Terrestrial Planet Finder, ISS research has been axed down. It is said some body is going to shut these Voyager programs down. The unstable dollar, costs of the serch for WMDs in Iraq, and the whitehouse running up huge debts is hurting the US economy. NASA has revised their plans like Prometheus, Mars Science Lander were significantly cut or delayed.
Many can forgive the Hubble deal with a little pain and sorrow, but some of these latest cuts are madness. The people who have been working for these past years on Polar, Wind, Geotail, FAST (Fast Auroral SnapshoT) and TRACE (Transition Region and Coronal Explorer)) were told from NASA there is now no money to keep their projects operating

I hope things work out ok

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-14 16:13:59

Simple? Yes... simply stupid. The big glaring problems with your "simple" plan abound...

If you are intending to send a manned ERV to the Moon without LOX for the return trip, then you force the entire mission to stay on the Moon for extended periods with no chance of emergency abort while fuel is being made... if it works at all.

And say you want to send an unmanned one as a "spare" and fuel it up before the first crew arrives in a similar vehicle? What if you miss and fail to land near the fueled ERV and have to come home? Out of luck... Not even Zubrin considers this risk acceptable for his Moon plan.

"Launch it on the same framework as the in-situ for mars..." You don't really have a clue why Martian and Lunar propellant plants are different, do you? There is no possiblity of signifigant commonality because they do entirely different things, the Lunar version makes LOX only from Lunar dirt, while the Martian version makes LOX and Methane from Martian CO2 and imported Hydrogen.

Speaking of which, the ERV vehicle you want to use? The one for Mars must burn Methane, but the one for the Moon should burn Hydrogen. This will make them so different, that they really won't have anything in common. Bigger fuel tanks, colder fuel, different structure, and so on. Having the acent vehicle for the Moon burn Methane is unacceptable, first because of the severe payload penalty because Methane is heavier then Hydrogen, and later on the propellant needed to sustain a base once ISRU is running is much greater.

This is not a trivial matter of sacrificing a few kilos of rocks, unless the Lunar vehicles burn Hydrogen, then running a base will require much larger amounts of fuel if it must be burned for the round-trip. Plus, later on if we do have access to Lunar water, then your rocket won't be able to use it! You can't make Methane without carbon, and there is no ready supply of it on the Moon.

Furthermore, as even Zubrin's "Direct Return" Lunar plan (which is similar to what your plan is) admits, directly landing and directly acending seriously impacts your payload capacity since you must lift all of your TEI fuel off the Moon, instead of keeping it in Lunar orbit. Again, this is not a trivial difference, for a vehicle small enough to fit on Ares you won't be able to lift a TransHAB or anything else heavy, even without the ISRU/reactor plant.

And if you are needing that reactor for every mission, you'll drive up the costs far too high. So say you want to build a big one that will last some years and send it? Too bad! Your vehicle can't lift that much payload to the Moon. Oh, and those mass savings from not needing a seperate acent vehicle? Already taken care of: the Boeing plan would use the CEV's mission module to double as the acent vehicle cabin.

Ares is simply not big enough to do the job in a single flight, and if you split it up into two pieces per sortie, that will drive costs through the roof, not to mention incur performance penalty since you can no longer go to the Moon directly (saving orbital circulization fuel). Speaking of which, if you go directly as with Zubrin's Moon plan, you HAVE to put the crew on Ares, which I think is too risky to do regularly.

Compare this to the evolved version of the Boeing/Lockheed CEV system... a 20MT class launcher places only the capsule and much of the Hydrogen needed for the trip, meets up with a Lunar ferry loaded with Lunar LOX, heads off to the Moon and refuels again on the surface and returns. The entire round trip flight for a crew sortie... with only one Medium rocket, and perhaps an annual/biannual load of Hydrogen from Earth via HLLV or EELV+. Compare this with your plan, which will require a massive HLLV for every mission, not leverage Lunar LOX for TLI, and requires you to put the crew on Ares.

Ultimatly, the drawbacks of your plan utterly doom it... It requires ISRU capability and a nontrivial base, yet it severely penalizes your payload mass that makes it hard to build the base. It would require Hydrogen propellant to mitigate these problems, which will still terribly slow base construction versus a Boeing/Lockheed style plan, and if you do that the your vehicle will have zero commonality with a Martian ERV. It requires the heaviest, most expensive, and least safe version of SDV launcher, but does not provide much bennefit for it. It is less safe since you can't rendevous in LEO with a seperate crew vehicle. And since it can't use Lunar LOX for TLI nor stops in Lunar orbit, it is not an acceptable solution for long-term operations.

Dook · 2005-05-14 18:38:59

Do you purposely ignore certain lines in posts or does the dyslexia do it for you? You act irrational toward any threatening ideas and every idea that is not your own is a threat. You rant and rave about how badly we need platinum and we don't even know how to separate it from other metals on the moon. Then you say there are "Mountains of platinum" on the moon. Sure. Sure, right next to the golden eggs.

I didn't say to send a manned ERV to the moon without LOX for the return trip, in fact if you look back over my posts you will see that I said we could send it already fueled for the home trip.

Also I don't think landing one craft in the vicinity of another is really going to be that difficult. Plus, they would still have the pressurized rover to drive over to the dry ascent vehicle. We will need to do it on mars so why not test it on the moon? Or we could send the habitat/rover to the moon unmanned, then go with a manned in-situ/dry ascent vehicle fully fueled and land next to the habitat. If we miss, so what, either go around the moon for another try, land anyway to test out the in-situ, or just go home. It doesn't get much better than that.

Framework means the same sized lander structure...the same lander frame, the same overall size to fit in the Ares... It does not mean the exact same in-situ equipment. So the moon one would go fully fueled with hydrogen/LOX and the mars one would go fueled with hydrogen to make LOX and methane. Maybe if you would calm down a little you would have seen how easy it all fits together. The moon landers wouldn't be the exact same as the mars landers, just the supporting structure, the framework, the size would be the same so they would both fit in the Ares the same.

The moon hab could use solar panels to make power, the nuclear reactor would be needed for mars with solar augmentation. I didn't say I want to build a big one, what I said was it probably wouldn't still be working when we returned years later so solar might be a better choice.

You are saying that a small dry ascent vehicle, basically a capsule for 2-4 people with a heat shield, rocket engines, and fuel for landing and launch from the moon is too heavy for Ares? No way.

Boeing/Lockheed system: Where does your lunar fairy come from? What infrastructure launched and fueled it with lunar LOX? Oh, wait, it's already there! They are going to use the stuff left over from Apollo! It's already making it for us!

My plan does not require ISRU, which I've said numerous times but I understand your dyslexia kicked in. Also, how is it necessary or even preferred to meet up with another vehicle in LEO? If it were an emergency they could dock with the ISS. But it's not necessary because they are in a capsule.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-14 21:27:18

You keep on babbling but it makes less and less sense each time you drop a post...

For instance, you keep going on about this "dry acent vehicle..." You do know that "dry" means "without fuel," right? You kept on saying it over and over again, dry acent this and dry acent that.

"The moon hab could use solar panels to make power...still be working when we returned years later..."

For about two weeks. Then when Lunar night comes, you are out of luck for another two weeks... and what is this nonsense about returning years later? We are going and not ever leaving again, ever.

"You are saying that a small dry ascent vehicle, basically a capsule for 2-4 people with a heat shield, rocket engines, and fuel for landing and launch from the moon is too heavy for Ares? No way."

Ares is the same size as the old 120MT Saturn-V rocket, which just barely got that little capsule there and back again. The lander payload was basically zero, hardly enough for the acent vehicle and the little rover... Apollo did rely on lower-performance Hypergolic fuels and fuel cell power, but you are looking to do the same thing - get there and back bringing every drop of fuel - except you are going to lug the TEI fuel down to the surface and back again. The Boeing plan calls for each mission starting at ~160MT and doesn't waste fuel lugging the TEI propellant down to the surface and back.

So yes, it is too heavy for Ares. We need heavier payloads, and direct return won't cut it without a much bigger (and less affordable) rocket (like Michael Griffin's Comet "Super Saturn"). You underestimate how hard it is to get to the Moon and back, just like Zubrin underestimates how hard it is to get to Mars and back. Oh, and I want to strenuously object to any nonsense about crews of less then four people!

"Framework means the same sized lander structure"

Not going to happen. Why not? Simple: Most of the volume of the vehicle is going to be fuel tank, and since the density of Hydrogen is so much lower then Methane, the Lunar vehicle configuration will be so much different that there will be no practical commonality. Different tanks, different structure, different engine & leg arrangement, different engines, different fuel lines, different everything. There won't be much of anything similar about them, I already said this in my previous post.

"It doesn't get much better than that."

Oh it sure can... we can start by it not being a dead-end arcitecture only suitable for visiting and being efficent enough to do something other then just ferry astronauts and just barely get them home. No more "just barely" anything, "just barely" thinking is what got us the thirty years of waste after Apollo.

"Also, how is it necessary or even preferred to meet up with another vehicle in LEO? If it were an emergency they could dock with the ISS. But it's not necessary because they are in a capsule."

What? Its obvious! So you can use a smaller, safer rocket of course. It is nessesarry to reduce the liklihood of the rocket exploding or otherwise killing the crew. Putting a crew on Ares isn't safe enough for regular long-term flights, and if you insist on a direct flight, then there is no opportunity to rendevous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Having to build even one brand new vehicle and a giant heavy lifter for every single crew rotation is unavoidable and unacceptable, especially when a single medium lift vehicle can do the job if it fully leverages Lunar oxygen and the ease of building a reuseable ferry vehicle.

The only infrastructure you would need to make this happen is a serious Lunar fuel depot, able to generate substantial quantities of Oxygen and store imported/mined Hydrogen. To build such a facility will probobly take ~100MT of payload, which requires serious lift and a little assembly, not arriving in thimble-fulls via Direct Return vehicles.

The ferry will not be trivial to develop, but it won't be that hard either. Boeing's lander will already probobly be reuseable, so basically it would just involve making a bigger, more reliable one with larger fuel tanks and more capable docking abilities.

Direct Return is simply out, it is NOT a long-term option, so it isn't a near-term option either.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-16 07:14:17

To do mars direct hardware for moon operation while it is over kill, needing modifications for landing and a few other things it is however the concept to develope a more universal set of items that can widthstand the duration of time for mars missions to which is important. It is the effort to save on design engineering costs for commonality of both destinations that wiil be what the public will not understand doing two distinctly different efforts. For they see it as only space.

Currently Nasa is rethinking what will and is needed for the goal of exploration.
Hidden within the 2005 budget year, NASA selected 70 pojects for contract awards collectively worth about 1 billion of payouts. For what some would have us assume that all would be needs to achieve the goal.
NASA Rethinks Technology Needs

Read on about the most expensive of the seven suspended projects which contain some that have nothing to do with going to the moon mars or beyound IMO.

SpaceNut · 2005-05-24 10:19:45

Budget effects with regards to what is on Nasa's already full plate.
NASA's new director backs science missions Shuttle comes first -- some unmanned efforts to be deferred

NASA's science program, with a proposed budget of $5.6 billion, is designed to support the agency's 55 spacecraft in orbit, 26 in development and 34 now being designed.
Funding deferments, Griffin said, are now in store for two robotic space ventures that planetary astronomers have long been awaiting.
One is the Terrestrial Planet Finder, a joint mission with the European Space Agency to search for Earth-size planets around nearby stars that might be capable of holding life. The other is the Space Interferometry Mission, another unmanned craft seeking evidence of habitable planets around accurately pinpointed distant stars.
Another problem facing Griffin as he makes his round of visits to all of NASA's research centers is the disputed effort to save the enormously productive Hubble Space Telescope, whose aging batteries and steering gyroscopes must be replaced by 2008 or its working life will end.

srmeaney · 2005-05-25 00:43:35

NASA's science program, with a proposed budget of $5.6 billion, is designed to support the agency's 55 spacecraft in orbit, 26 in development and 34 now being designed.
Funding deferments, Griffin said, are now in store for two robotic space ventures that planetary astronomers have long been awaiting.
One is the Terrestrial Planet Finder, a joint mission with the European Space Agency to search for Earth-size planets around nearby stars that might be capable of holding life. The other is the Space Interferometry Mission, another unmanned craft seeking evidence of habitable planets around accurately pinpointed distant stars.
Another problem facing Griffin as he makes his round of visits to all of NASA's research centers is the disputed effort to save the enormously productive Hubble Space Telescope, whose aging batteries and steering gyroscopes must be replaced by 2008 or its working life will end.

Thats the problem right there. How about one space vehicle designed to take off at the airport like a passenger jet, transfer a hundred people into space, visit a space station, and return to the same airport.

Anything else is just a millitary dropship.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-06 12:26:01

Big Universe, Tightening Budget: NASA Looks for Ways To Pay for Hubble, Cost Overruns

When the U.S. space agency reorganized its mission enterprises last year, it combined all of its astronomy programs into a single program dubbed the Universe. Today, the Universe has more than a dozen space astronomy missions on orbit and at least that many in development.
The projected price tag for the James Webb Space Telescope, for example, has swelled by another $1 billion to $4.5 billion. That unpleasant surprise prompted NASA to seek ways to scale back the mission and erode the cost increase without dealing a fatal blow to the program’s science objectives.

Then again the list of those projects coming in at or near budget are ??? Who knows? it would seem none.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-08 07:36:12

House Appropriations Committee Approves $16.5 Billion 2006 NASA Budget

Other impact to the House Appropriators Hit Space Programs Hard
House Appropriations Committee applied the brakes June 7 to the U.S. Air Force’s two most ambitious and high-profile satellite development efforts.

Can anyone explain how the House boosts NASA budget

The budget reflects NASA's new spending priorities, including $3.1 billion for projects associated with President Bush's space exploration initiative.

Last I checked 16.5 - 15 is only 1.5 billion not 3.1.

But then again the Group Says NASA Budget Cuts Will Damage Science Programs cuts "NASA's proposed 2006 budget reduces science research by $1.2 billion over the next five years, a dramatic change." can not be the only fund shuffling going on.

SpaceNut · 2005-06-17 07:38:08

House shoots for moon, approves NASA funding Multi agency legislation fulfills Bush's priority for exploration

The exploration initiative is funded at $3.1 billion and the space shuttle at $4.53 billion, the levels sought in the president's 2006 request. Aeronautics was funded at $906 million — the same as in 2005.
Though the White House sought to cut spending on science programs to kick off exploration, the House agreed to $5.51 billion, nearly restoring the amount to this year's level.

So since we are only getting 2 or 3 flights from the shuttle in 2006, where is all the funds going?

Palomar · 2005-06-17 07:46:07

So since we are only getting 2 or 3 flights from the shuttle in 2006, where is all the funds going?

*Probably to wine and dine corporate CEOs. Or for tossing lavish parties (for corporate CEOs). Or for $500 wrenches.

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-06-17 09:57:27

That would be because NASA will be walking on eggshells with Shuttle from now on, and they will basically be taking the thing halfway apart between missions to search for the slightest defects. That takes time and a WHOLE LOT of money, as Shuttle is the singular most complex machine ever created by man, without any peer or exception.

It is difficult to express in common words just how complicated Shuttle really is. As the complexity increases, the time and money required to work on it increases geometrically.

Dook · 2005-06-17 15:25:27

All of that just to go to the ISS and maybe Hubble. Actually the main reason for having/keeping the shuttle is to serve as a kind of welfare system for the middle class.

I would support a mission to save Hubble. Let the Russians take over the ISS like they said they would if we went on to other things.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-05-13 11:20:42

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#27 2005-05-13 11:42:14

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#28 2005-05-13 12:12:48

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#29 2005-05-13 12:26:23

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#30 2005-05-13 12:28:57

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#31 2005-05-13 12:56:00

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#32 2005-05-13 14:27:40

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#33 2005-05-13 15:12:41

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#34 2005-05-13 20:50:32

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#35 2005-05-13 21:32:41

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#36 2005-05-14 13:16:25

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#37 2005-05-14 13:53:44

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#38 2005-05-14 14:46:28

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#39 2005-05-14 16:13:59

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#40 2005-05-14 18:38:59

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#41 2005-05-14 21:27:18

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#42 2005-05-16 07:14:17

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#43 2005-05-24 10:19:45

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#44 2005-05-25 00:43:35

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#45 2005-06-06 12:26:01

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#46 2005-06-08 07:36:12

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#47 2005-06-17 07:38:08

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#48 2005-06-17 07:46:07

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#49 2005-06-17 09:57:27

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

#50 2005-06-17 15:25:27

Re: NASA 2006 Budget

Board footer