You are not logged in.
Can anyone explain or justify the amount of time and money that NASA claims it will take to devlope an operational CEV or to return to the Moon?
Based on what I'm hearing in the media, it seems as though it will take longer and cost more to return to the moon today than it did to go there originally in 1968. Can anyone explain how this could possibly be acceptable?
I would invite anyone to explain or justify NASA's project scope on this.
Finally, how does the way NASA conducts its manned spacefight program bode for Manned Mars Exploration?
Charlie
Offline
The jury must remain out for a few more months.
The resignation of Admiral Steidle and the cancellation of the CEV "fly-off" he was to administer means we do not yet know what the CEV program will be. (The Thiokol stick for CEV is my guess but we just don't know yet)
Also, it appears that Dr. Griffin will announce his return to the moon architecture and CEV program details later this summer. Some say July. The O'Keefe planning process may very well be dead, dead, dead (that's why NASA execs have been reassigned or let go) and therefore we currently have no real idea what the implementation of the vision will look like.
Therefore we cannot yet judge.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
The biggest reason that we aren't going back to the Moon faster is pretty simple, that for the next five years or so the vast majority of NASA's budget is going to be spent on forcing Shuttle to fly a little bit longer and to prop up the ageing ISS. And, unless Griffin grows some serious spine to tell Congress that the ISS is a failure and we should abandon it, we will be spending about a quarter or a third of NASA's manned flight budget on trying to keep it up there for years to come after 2010.
In fact, if you look at the amount of money that NASA aims to spend on VSE between now and 2015 if you assume no big decrease in Shuttle budget before 2010 and a steady or modestly increased ISS budget between now and 2015, NASA doesn't have that much money to spend versus what was plowed into Apollo.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Based on what I'm hearing in the media, it seems as though it will take longer and cost more to return to the moon today than it did to go there originally in 1968. Can anyone explain how this could possibly be acceptable?
I don't know the numbers, but they (popular press) possibly compare 1960-70 dollars to today dollars, w/o the inflation? Huuuuge difference.
Also, they're working on a more extensive program than Apollo (that's what they say... Still pretty much vaporware ...)
So they're not copying Apollo, but go for (I suppose) a more flexible, re-usable setup, which initially costs a lot of money, but in the end should turn out to give more bangs for the bucks.
Oh, and it supposedly won't be landing-flag-and-footprints, and a little stroll/ride in the neighbourhood... semi-permanent base instead.
Might, should, suppose... Hard to defend or attack their modus operandi, because no-one has decided what will happen.
Offline
this new CEV craft is not yet done, in about 7 years the CEV will be absorbing maximum funding (operational vehicle or not)
some other designs
is the capsule idea better ?
http://boeingmedia.com/boeingmedia/img/ … /R42ls.jpg
http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/space60s/ro … ombus2.jpg
NASA has plans to build a shuttle2, will be new CEV be a better shuttle-II
Some say NASA will try and build a CEV shuttle type craft to fly around the Moon in the future but
danger in the CEV program right now is to expect too much from it.
'first steps are not for cheap, think about it...
did China build a great Wall in a day ?' ( Y L R newmars forum member )
Offline
