NASA's Moon Mission

Commodore · 2005-09-19 19:38:49

Their going for the same reason they want to go to Mars.

BWhite · 2005-09-19 19:56:55

It was amazing just how much Apollo didn't accomplish scientifically, largely in part because they lacked a heavy drill, couldn't bring many samples back, couldn't stay long on the surface, and only had two crew.

Except for Harrison Schmidt, they also didn't send any scientists.

The departure stage has very little value of its own. All power, control, maneuvering, and docking facilities will be provided by the lander, and hence the thing will be pretty "dumb." A tank of that size should only cost a few tens of millions to produce, and each copy of the RL-10/RL-60 only cost a few million each. The departure stage is not worth trying to save, it cannot soft-land nor be impacted on the Moon with any accuracy, plus would require a deorbit/LOC burn.

I like this way of thinking. Re-use what is sensible to re-use. Dispose of the rest.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-19 19:58:59

The Moon:

-Has Platinum, which we will need in a few decades probobly, especially with larger numbers of people buying electronics and fuel cells, which at the moment require Pt.

-Is the only viable site for astronomy much beyond what is done today, the Moon's dark side offers a level of thermal, radio, and optical "quiet" that is not available anywhere else in Cislunar space. Its easier to build and manage big scopes' on the ground too.

-The Moon is the only viable source of Helium-3, which will make fusion power somewhat easier to achieve and will prevent the unwanted and potentially problematic neutron radiation. Only He3 fusion is "completly" clean.

-In the nearer term, the Moon offers large supplies of oxygen with 1/6th the gravity of Earth and no air drag, which if there is much activity in Cislunar space would be very nice to have.

-A space elevator to the Moon would be relativly easy compared to an Earthly one too

-In the further future, building large solar farms on the Moon to collect sunlight more efficiently then on Earth and send it here with a very large phased-array microwave transmitter. Potentially easier then building orbital solar satelites, plus much of the bulk materials (mainly iron, silicon, and aluminum) are on the Moon, so you would not have to haul them from Earth.

-Easier mining, with the gravity offerd by the Moon mining would be far, far, far easier than asteroid mining.

-Its only a three day hop from Earth. One day if you have fuel to spare. Lunar tourists anyone?

BWhite · 2005-09-19 20:01:37

The Moon:
-Has Platinum, which we will need in a few decades probobly, especially with larger numbers of people buying electronics and fuel cells, which at the moment require Pt.
-Is the only viable site for astronomy much beyond what is done today, the Moon's dark side offers a level of thermal, radio, and optical "quiet" that is not available anywhere else in Cislunar space. Its easier to build and manage big scopes' on the ground too.
-The Moon is the only viable source of Helium-3, which will make fusion power somewhat easier to achieve and will prevent the unwanted and potentially problematic neutron radiation. Only He3 fusion is "completly" clean.
-In the nearer term, the Moon offers large supplies of oxygen with 1/6th the gravity of Earth and no air drag, which if there is much activity in Cislunar space would be very nice to have.
-A space elevator to the Moon would be relativly easy compared to an Earthly one too
-In the further future, building large solar farms on the Moon to collect sunlight more efficiently then on Earth and send it here with a very large phased-array microwave transmitter. Potentially easier then building orbital solar satelites, plus much of the bulk materials (mainly iron, silicon, and aluminum) are on the Moon, so you would not have to haul them from Earth.
-Easier mining, with the gravity offerd by the Moon mining would be far, far, far easier than asteroid mining.
-Its only a three day hop from Earth. One day if you have fuel to spare. Lunar tourists anyone?

Mars is the second best place in the solar system to raise a family. Otherwise, this is a pretty good list.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-19 20:06:32

Sure, Mars is a better place to live no doubt about it. But at least working on the Moon is without question economically and scientifically worthwhile, at least in the long run.

BWhite · 2005-09-19 20:18:22

Sure, Mars is a better place to live no doubt about it. But at least working on the Moon is without question economically and scientifically worthwhile, at least in the long run.

Agreed.

RobertDyck · 2005-09-19 21:48:52

The Moon:
-Has Platinum, which we will need in a few decades probobly, especially with larger numbers of people buying electronics and fuel cells, which at the moment require Pt.

M-type asteroids have more platinum, easier to extract and less fuel to reach.

-Is the only viable site for astronomy much beyond what is done today, the Moon's dark side offers a level of thermal, radio, and optical "quiet" that is not available anywhere else in Cislunar space. Its easier to build and manage big scopes' on the ground too.

Yup, agree completely.

-The Moon is the only viable source of Helium-3, which will make fusion power somewhat easier to achieve and will prevent the unwanted and potentially problematic neutron radiation. Only He3 fusion is "completly" clean.

We don't know how to build a viable fusion power plant, and when we do we can use deuterium from tap water. It will never be economical to bring to Earth. You could use it in space for fusion rocket engines, if anyone ever develops one, but not on Earth.

-In the nearer term, the Moon offers large supplies of oxygen with 1/6th the gravity of Earth and no air drag, which if there is much activity in Cislunar space would be very nice to have.

Yup.

-A space elevator to the Moon would be relativly easy compared to an Earthly one too

Yes, but I have no idea of the economics.

-In the further future, building large solar farms on the Moon to collect sunlight more efficiently then on Earth and send it here with a very large phased-array microwave transmitter. Potentially easier then building orbital solar satelites, plus much of the bulk materials (mainly iron, silicon, and aluminum) are on the Moon, so you would not have to haul them from Earth.

So you want a multi-megawatt microwave beam pointed to Earth all the way from the Moon? I thought aiming such a thing from geosynchronous orbit was bad enough; aiming from the Moon is dangerous. The Earth turns roughly once per day, hitting a city is just too easy. If you want to use lunar materials to make solar collectors, launch them to Earth orbit. GEO is still 36,000km up. Make sure you don't fly an airplane through the beam. (Is it called a ray if it's electromagnetic?)

-Easier mining, with the gravity offerd by the Moon mining would be far, far, far easier than asteroid mining.

Yes, but only for those materials readily available. You can get lots of aluminum, silicon, and titanium from the Moon. Smelting oxide ore will yield oxygen. But you need hydrogen to smelt iron or titanium, and hydrochloric acid (hydrogen chloride in water) to separate alumina from feldspar. Alumina can be smelted into aluminum and oxygen with carbon and electricity, and the carbon can be recycled with hydrogen (also recycled) but any losses have to be replenished. We already discussed how scarce hydrogen and carbon are on the Moon. It would be easier importing them from a C-type asteroid. Yes, you could do that. Once you start mining an asteroid for one material you can mine another for other materials. Iron is easier to get from an M-type asteroid, and platinum much more so. Aluminum, titanium and silicon are much easier from the Moon.

-Its only a three day hop from Earth. One day if you have fuel to spare. Lunar tourists anyone?

Yup, lunar tourism as soon as economically viable. But you need reusable vehicles to make it viable.

RobertDyck · 2005-09-19 22:17:29

I'm very much concerned about this architecture. It's just a re-do of Apollo. The federal government gets more money in taxes from the aerospace industry than it spends on NASA. As long as NASA drives technological advancement of the aerospace industry, the government gets a positive return on investment. The key is advancing technology. If NASA's work does not grow the aerospace industry, then the government receives nothing for its investment. I don't see how this architecture advances the state of the art. How is this going to lead to profitable lunar tourism? I have real concerns about solar power satellites, just read "The Case for Mars".

This architecture does land rather than splash-down, that is an improvement. But I don't see how that will spin off to private aerospace efforts.

I still argue for a single vehicle with direct landing rather than lunar orbit rendezvous. I also argue for a small vehicle that lands 4 crew, or 3 crew plus instruments. Keep the CEV small by deleting the rover. A heavy cargo lander can deliver a rover and heavy drill to the base. In fact, give the base a long-range rover for serious exploration.

I also notice the SDV is launched with cargo only, crew rendezvous in orbit. That's great! The accident investigation board reports from both Challenger and Columbia called for separation of cargo from crew. This accomplishes that. I also think a segmented rocket with rubber O-ring seals right beside a liquid hydrogen tank should be for cargo only, not a new man-rated vehicle. As we discussed elsewhere, the "Stick" is safe because it doesn't have an LH2 tank beside segment seals.

But, this is an inline HLLV used for orbital assembly. I still think side mount is better for orbital assembly because the engine pod with RCS thrusters for stabilization can be recoverable. Inline is great if nothing is recoverable, which means it's the only way to go for direct launch to trans-Lunar or trans-Mars trajectories. This architecture does use the lunar module's maneuvering thrusters for stabilization during docking. That makes it somewhat better, but the main engines (SSMEs) are expended. They're expensive. This also demands that any future payload other than an LM have thrusters for stabilization during orbital assembly.

John Creighton · 2005-09-19 23:28:50

The Moon:
-Has Platinum, which we will need in a few decades probobly, especially with larger numbers of people buying electronics and fuel cells, which at the moment require Pt.
M-type asteroids have more platinum, easier to extract and less fuel to reach.

Maybe this is true for robots but an asteroid is going to be a longer voyage for people. It will also be more difficult to mine because of low gravity. There is no reason that lunar mining and asteroid mining can't be complementary but I am not convinced asteroid mining is superior in all regards.

-Easier mining, with the gravity offerd by the Moon mining would be far, far, far easier than asteroid mining.
Yes, but only for those materials readily available. You can get lots of aluminum, silicon, and titanium from the Moon. Smelting oxide ore will yield oxygen. But you need hydrogen to smelt iron or titanium, and hydrochloric acid (hydrogen chloride in water) to separate alumina from feldspar. Alumina can be smelted into aluminum and oxygen with carbon and electricity, and the carbon can be recycled with hydrogen (also recycled) but any losses have to be replenished. We already discussed how scarce hydrogen and carbon are on the Moon. It would be easier importing them from a C-type asteroid. Yes, you could do that. Once you start mining an asteroid for one material you can mine another for other materials. Iron is easier to get from an M-type asteroid, and platinum much more so. Aluminum, titanium and silicon are much easier from the Moon.
-Its only a three day hop from Earth. One day if you have fuel to spare. Lunar tourists anyone?
Yup, lunar tourism as soon as economically viable. But you need reusable vehicles to make it viable.

For these reasons lunar mining will and asteroid mining will probably complement each other even if lunar mining turns out to be easier.

John Creighton · 2005-09-19 23:42:10

I'm very much concerned about this architecture. It's just a re-do of Apollo. The federal government gets more money in taxes from the aerospace industry than it spends on NASA. As long as NASA drives technological advancement of the aerospace industry, the government gets a positive return on investment. The key is advancing technology. If NASA's work does not grow the aerospace industry, then the government receives nothing for its investment. I don't see how this architecture advances the state of the art. How is this going to lead to profitable lunar tourism? I have real concerns about solar power satellites, just read "The Case for Mars".

The majority of the initial cost is going to be to develop vehicles we need to do any type of exploration that requires delivering a large mass to LEO. This includes the moon and mars for sure and perhaps a host of other possibilities. It seems that NASA needs heavy lift and RLV but it can only afford one at the moment. The question remains which is the best step forward. I say the SDV is the best step forward because it is a low risk way of maintaining a capability to deliver men into space. It also gives NASA the capability to do things beyond LEO which will be a capability that will be unique to NASA in the coming decades.

I still argue for a single vehicle with direct landing rather than lunar orbit rendezvous.

Why would you favour a method that uses more fuel to do the same job. Perhaps when Lunar oxygen is available direct landing could be useful. However, there is the question if it is worth while to spend the development dollars to develop two approaches that do the same thing. The better alternative is to improve the architecture by developing reusable vehicles for landing on the moon and possible even for the Journey between earth and the moon. If such vehicles could be supported by lunar resources then the capability of the lunar missions is greatly enhanced.

I also argue for a small vehicle that lands 4 crew, or 3 crew plus instruments. Keep the CEV small by deleting the rover. A heavy cargo lander can deliver a rover and heavy drill to the base. In fact, give the base a long-range rover for serious exploration.

This to me makes no sense. You want to reduce the capabilities of the architecture so you don't repeat Apollo? The way to not repeat Apollo is to do more not do less or the same.

VTTFSH_V · 2005-09-20 00:14:25

Their going for the same reason they want to go to Mars.

And that is...?

RobertDyck · 2005-09-20 00:25:40

Hi John, thanks for your comments.

I still argue for a single vehicle with direct landing rather than lunar orbit rendezvous.
Why would you favour a method that uses more fuel to do the same job. Perhaps when Lunar oxygen is available direct landing could be useful. However, there is the question if it is worth while to spend the development dollars to develop two approaches that do the same thing. The better alternative is to improve the architecture by developing reusable vehicles for landing on the moon and possible even for the Journey between earth and the moon. If such vehicles could be supported by lunar resources then the capability of the lunar missions is greatly enhanced.

Actually the single direct landing vehicle can be reusable by aerobraking into Earth orbit and rendezvous with a RLV crew taxi for landing. The rendezvous point could be ISS. The heat shield for aerocapture could be nextel 440 fabric stretched on a frame like an umbrella. As an emergency abort system, make the crew capsule an escape pod. If you use the descent module from Northup Grumman's offering for CEV then it could enter Earth's atmosphere.

I also argue for a small vehicle that lands 4 crew, or 3 crew plus instruments. Keep the CEV small by deleting the rover. A heavy cargo lander can deliver a rover and heavy drill to the base. In fact, give the base a long-range rover for serious exploration.
This to me makes no sense. You want to reduce the capabilities of the architecture so you don't repeat Apollo? The way to not repeat Apollo is to do more not do less or the same.

Keep it small for scouting missions, then use it as a crew taxi to the lunar surface. Send a Mars habitat as the lunar base. This would test Mars hardware on the Moon. Send a heavy rover, heavy drill, and other equipment for use at the base on a cargo lander. This would enable much more capability than Apollo. The key is to do most of the work at the base.

::Edit:: I wonder. Could you keep it small using carried oxygen for propellant, then the same vehicle have a greater carry capacity with lunox from the base?

SpaceNut · 2005-09-20 05:28:32

Whatever happened to using Lunox? What about a heavy cargo lander?
Other then the inline SDV HLLV I don't see anything about how this is going to get us to Mars. That worries me.

Except for my belief that early deployment of a lunar LOX facility would be politically useful (at least symbolically) to communicate an intention to stay I pretty much agree with GCNRevenger's last post.
Stick cargo on that lander and land on Luna and there you go.
= = =
Is the RL-10 / RL-60 officially part of the design for the lander? I hadn't seen that yet.
How many engines?

This sort of starts to answer PurduesUSAFguy question on the LSAM or lunar lander for cargo but lets go one step further. Since cargo is only one way there is no need for the Ascent stage that is part of the crew habitat area. So we save on the weight of the fuel, plus oxidizer tanks and other stuff that would support a human crew in a cargo lander.
So in esence we have a heavy cargo lander with slight modifications.

As for scout missions, no need if robotic can do the job. It is only if they can not is one needed. This whole lunar and transportational system must be geared at going to stay and not to visit.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-20 08:46:40

Nasa is currently thinking that the LSAM is expendable and I am wondering if the ascent stage could if refueled in orbit return to allow for a continued base construction or is this just not worth it.

Nasa preview of the complete parkage.
[url=http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/cev/index_noaccess.html]A New Era of Space Exploration
Nasa's New Spaceship[/url]

SpaceNut · 2005-09-20 09:58:42

One of the main themes repeated yesterday during the Nasa TV announcement was that they were not going to ask for more money thant what they are planned to be getting.
This in and of itself is problematic for starting a new project while keeping all the old ones still going.
One of the reasons for thinking that they will not need more money is by using the existing hardware of course with slight modifications to some of the pieces.
We know how that has turned out with just simple modifications to the ET as far as cost to do the work goes. I am sure we could find or get a figure for the cost if need be.
The second way is by holding constant the required number of pieces to the same number as required by 3 shuttle flights to be used in the new configuration for only 2 lunar flights per year.
That said I would expect that the shuttle army and contractors needed to build and launch the new vehicles will stay constant at the current funding use of roughly 4.5 billion give or take a billion.

[url=http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_3044458]NASA straps rockets to ATK Thiokol's future
Jobs secured: The space agency's next-generation space vehicle will continue to use the Utah-based company's solid-rocket boosters[/url]

The move brings job security to some 3,000 workers in northern Utah and millions of dollars to the company whose solid-rocket boosters have sent Americans into space with the current space shuttle.
Astronauts will be launched into space on top of a four-segment booster and they will parachute back to earth in a reusable pod that may end up landing somewhere in the western United States.
ATK's part of the current space shuttle is a $375 million annual contract and Hallowell expects that amount to stay the same or even increase as NASA prepares to send humans back to the moon and later to Mars.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-20 13:28:34

Asteroid mining is very likly a folly, that trying to mine without gravity is going to be far, far harder then proponets imagine. The simple fact that they can't come up with many reasons why asteroid mining would be difficult is ample proof that they have no clue what hardships will be faced. Any notions to the contrary are without merit.

And besides, why bother? The Moon has been an "asteroid magnet" since the creation of the Earth, and so it stands to reason that there are asteroids on the Moon's surface. We just have to use probes, robots, and occasionally manned expeditions to find them.

You do not need Hydrogen to refine iron, microwave smelting can do it without any. I am also unconvinced that Titanium cannot be processed without HCl, and infact I bet that the microwave smelting method might work on it too.

Direct flight to the Moon is right out; the amount of fuel needed to lug the TEI stage back to Lunar orbit is extreme, and despite not having to carry a seperate crew cabin will eliminate any useful payload besides the crew capsule. This is unacceptable, signifigant payload must ride with the crew, since many missions will not be to a central base, and it will be very inefficent to send their supplies & equipment seperatly. The mass of equipment needed is not measured in kilograms, its measured in tonnes! Certainly no less expensive then the current NASA plan... Its going to be a long time before a reuseable system might justifiable, easily after initial Mars missions.

Again, to avoid a redux of Apollo, capabilities must greatly exceed what is needed to simply get people to or from the Moon. Crews of four, with growth options for six with shorter stays are also non-negotiable. Multiple (preferably 10MT+) tonnes of cargo must ride with the crew. Direct return does not offer these capability with a reasonably launch sized vehicle anywhere on the Lunar surface, since it would be unable to refuel except at the base. Reusing a direct return vehicle makes no sense either, the only thing you would be saving is the TEI stage and the heat shield at the expense of a tug-enabled tanker, since the NASA CEV capsule will be reuseable after reentry.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-21 05:47:42

The companies competing to build a new spaceship for moon missions say they can be ready to fly by NASA's 2012 target date, and the winning bidder likely will bring more than just launch operations to Florida. But the bid to build will be awarded possibly within the next year.

While lockheed has gone back to the drawing board and Boeing Northrop team is gleefully enjoying the look and appearance to what Nasa envisions the fleet of vehicles to look like.

The rest of the world is looking at the total dollars that will be need, the incomplete structure of what will not only be build but of how it will be used to further comercial markets and of cost what is the payback for having invested $104 billion for the project just to start going back to the moon.

What people need to also realize is that a number of builds will be test flights, some will be to the ISS most likely as shake down missions and quite possible the HLLV will be use to supplement ISS builds for where the shuttle leaves off.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-21 08:21:16

For those that did not get to tune in.NASA News Conference With Mike Griffin: Exploration Systems Architecture Study Transcript

SpaceNut · 2005-09-21 08:45:55

Lawmakers Prepare Plans to Finance Storm Relief

Conservative House Republicans plan to recommend on Wednesday more than $500 billion in savings over 10 years to compensate for the costs of Hurricane Katrina as lawmakers continue to struggle to develop a consensus on the fiscal approach to the disaster.

Balancing the budget is not easy but this is what they will try to do and where the money will come from:

At the top of a partial list of the potential cuts being circulated on Tuesday were previously suggested ideas like delaying the start of the new Medicare prescription drug coverage for one year to save $31 billion and eliminating $25 billion in projects from the newly enacted transportation measure.
The list also proposed eliminating the Moon-Mars initiative that NASA announced on Monday, for $44 billion in savings; ending support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, $4 billion; cutting taxpayer payments for the national political conventions and the presidential election campaign fund, $600 million; and charging federal employees for parking, $1.54 billion.

Gee we just get moving and it looks like we are not going to move at all.

Another question from the bold text, how does $104 billion for the Moon program equate to only a 44Billion savings? :? ???

RobertDyck · 2005-09-21 09:11:14

When starting any project you have to ask "how can it be done" not "why it can't". Those who start with the assumption it can't be done will find an excuse, those who start with the belief it can be done will find a way. I presented my ideas for asteroid mining at this year's Mars Society convention. You should have been there to kibitz; at least you would see what I'm talking about. I won't repeat myself again, instead I'll write it as a paper and publish in the Mars Society library. That's in the member's only part of the web site. If you have a paid membership you can read all papers there.

Remember any asteroid impact on a planetary body (Moon or Earth) will result in pulverised material thinly scattered among a lot of native rock. You won't find a large asteroid core in any crater, the asteroid will be shattered and fragments scattered. An asteroid still in space is 100% asteroid material. Remember that material is still a mixture of stuff. An M-type asteroid is metal with 30% or less mineral inclusions. A C-type is pebbles in a matrix of clay, gypsum, epsom salts, tar, and ice.

The published method to extract titanium from ilmenite used hydrogen. Since ilmenite has been found on the Moon, this method was published with the intent of smelting titanium on the Moon. The usual method of smelting iron on Earth uses carbon monoxide. The direct method uses CO or H2, usually a combination of the two. Microwave smelting requires a hell of a lot of energy and I doubt it would work on ilmenite. Aluminum from feldspar using HCl was a paper I presented at the 2004 Mars Society convention. That's aluminum, not titanium.

Direct flight to the Moon can be done, but as we discussed elsewhere it would be most practical using an expendable TLI stage fuelled by LOX/LH2. In fact lunar tourism requires a reusable vehicle so developing a reusable vehicle now would prepare for commercialization.

Your continuing argument for a large expendable lunar exploration vehicle is only convincing me that we need to do scouting with robotic vehicles and restrict human exploration to a single base. Let them use a surface rover. That means a one way heavy cargo lander can deliver equipment weighing tonnes.

Oh, NASA's plan to make the CEV capsule reusable is a very good improvement over Apollo. However the LM and service module aren't.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-21 14:49:06

Oh, well thats pretty easy...

NASA intends to spend about $40-50Bn to "finish" the ISS with Shuttle and for upkeep until ~2017.

The other $15-25Bn would pay to develop The Stick, the CEV capsule with under-sized service module, and pay for a few dozen flights for crew & cargo.

That $44Bn pays for the development of the big SDV heavy lifter, the TLI stage, the extended service module (perhaps a bigger CEV capsule), and the Lunar lander with a few copies of each.

And I bet Robert down there under the "you have chosen to ignore this user" is talking the talk again, somebody mind telling him he's wrong for me whatever he's saying?

RobertDyck · 2005-09-21 15:03:31

No, GCNRevenger, I haven't ignored you. Have you ignored me? How rude.

And I am concerned about the $104 billion price tag for return to the Moon. Mars Direct was budgetted at $20 billion for a single mission plus $2 billion for each additional, or $30 billion for 7 missions. NASA's design reference mission with 6 crew per and all the rest was budgetted at $55 billion. The Moon is closer, it should be easier; why does it cost $104 billion?

I still would like to finish ISS with SDV. Remember my launch manifest: the current Atlantis flight, Hubble service mission 4, 3 combinations flights (1 orbiter + 1 SDV), then 1 orbiter only flight for Node 3. That completes the exterior ISS without any cutback. I also want an additional orbiter flight for the US hab module. Then pay ESA $1.48 billion for 8 ATV flights to complete interior stuff. That's a total of 7 orbiter flights, then cancel the Shuttle program.

That's an interesting cost breakdown. I haven't read that anywhere, did you make it up yourself? Both Mars Direct and NASA's DRM included a heavy lift SDV as part of their budget, why would this SDV cost more?

Ad Astra · 2005-09-21 19:09:42

And I am concerned about the $104 billion price tag for return to the Moon. Mars Direct was budgetted at $20 billion for a single mission plus $2 billion for each additional, or $30 billion for 7 missions. NASA's design reference mission with 6 crew per and all the rest was budgetted at $55 billion. The Moon is closer, it should be easier; why does it cost $104 billion?

I don't regard the Mars Direct cost estimate as relaible. The $50 million figure for Mars Semi-Direct is probably a lot closer to the truth. Still, I tend to think that even $50 million is too low. After all, Semi-Direct used nuclear-thermal rockets, and it used the Saturn V-derived "Comet" instead of a cheaper SDV.

The cost model for lunar return isn't helped by the need to develop "Stick." Also working against it is the delayed development schedule. Programs that don't bite the financial bullet up-front tend to bleed to death in the long run.

And how did NASA get the $104 billion figure? Simple. They figured an annual budget of $8 bil for manned spaceflight (roughly what it is today) multiplied by 13 years between 2005 and 2018. A huge chunk of this is the fixed cost of the shuttle & ISS programs, which will not decrease thanks to the shuttle-derived decision. When Bob Zubrin came up with $20 bil for Mars Direct, was he factoring this cost into his calculations?

SpaceNut · 2005-09-21 19:25:08

Something that was also missed by the announcement was the lack of foriegn partners to join into this very large program.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-21 19:42:57

I think the $20Bn figure is downright preposterous, and would be characteristic of Bob's history of lying and deception to push his personal one true way of getting things done.

The ~$60-65Bn (todays money) for NASA DRM-III would use the inline 80-100MT class SDV and deliver ships to Mars in two pieces, one for the ship and one for the TLI stage. I bet that it might cost a little more then this however, but if the SDV and launch/reentry capsule are being paid for with "Moon money" then this figure is a little more nebulous.

Quite right about the $104 figure, unfortunatly finishing the ISS (and the inevitible tending missions with CEV) are considerd a part of VSE or something. ~$7Bn a year (Shuttle+ISS) until 2010, and another ~$3Bn+ until 2017 or 2018 adds up to a bit over $50Bn. Congress knows that CEV or something of similar scale will be required to tend the ISS following Shuttle, so building The Stick and CEV with 20 copies must cost around $15-20Bn.

The rest being Moon-specific ~$44Bn (SDV-HLLV, Lunar lander, TLI stage, extended service module, etc) which could be "reappropriated" because Congress is lazy and doesn't mind ending NASA's future (maybe just to take a swipe at Bush).

Foreign "partners" have little to contribute, and after the failure of the ISS experiment, any "partnership" beyond scientific payloads or data analysis should be avoided... NASA nor hopefully the government will not soon forget how Russia has stabbed them in the back.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-09-19 19:38:49

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#27 2005-09-19 19:56:55

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#28 2005-09-19 19:58:59

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#29 2005-09-19 20:01:37

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#30 2005-09-19 20:06:32

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#31 2005-09-19 20:18:22

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#32 2005-09-19 21:48:52

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#33 2005-09-19 22:17:29

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#34 2005-09-19 23:28:50

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#35 2005-09-19 23:42:10

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#36 2005-09-20 00:14:25

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#37 2005-09-20 00:25:40

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#38 2005-09-20 05:28:32

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#39 2005-09-20 08:46:40

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#40 2005-09-20 09:58:42

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#41 2005-09-20 13:28:34

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#42 2005-09-21 05:47:42

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#43 2005-09-21 08:21:16

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#44 2005-09-21 08:45:55

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#45 2005-09-21 09:11:14

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#46 2005-09-21 14:49:06

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#47 2005-09-21 15:03:31

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#48 2005-09-21 19:09:42

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#49 2005-09-21 19:25:08

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#50 2005-09-21 19:42:57

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

Board footer