Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

SpaceNut · 2005-11-07 07:47:59

Well I think it is time to end the old ISS Woes & To-Mars thread since it has reached the 300 mark. As well as it is sort of time to combine a few threads back together in that while Nasa still is struggling with the shuttle and budget shortfalls the Russian part of the ISS partnership has continued on its way to putting forth efforts to make the station worth while for there investment.

A major stumbling block for Nasa in the INA act seems to have been resolved but as of this time no information has been released as to how many flights on a soyuz will be booked or if Nasa will use this cheaper ride as a way to save money out of the shuttle missions to further hasten the developement of the CEV.

Shuttle currently is expected to have a short fall of anywhere from 3 to 6 billion though 2010. The number of construction flights has also inched down from 28 to 19 and maybe on its way towards as low as 15. Some partners that have built there respective modules are as well disatisfied with the mission curtailment in that there modules are slated to not be flown.

As mentioned before it would seem that Russia is still in a sort of hardball playing position with the only ride in town with this jab directed at Nasa while proceeding to place modules on there list of deliveries to the ISS.

Russia to add two modules to ISS

Russia will deliver into orbit in 2008-09 a laboratory and a research modules to the International Space Station (ISS).
As for an energy module, he said that Russia would not launch this module “if the US meets us halfway and secures energy until 2010-15”.
“If the American side refuses – even though such statements have not sounded during preliminary consultations, or is unable to launch it on shuttles, Roskosmos is going to deliver the energy module to the ISS on its own using the carrier rocket Proton,” Perminov said.

All while Russia set to launch six spacecraft in 2006

Russia is planning to launch four Progress cargo ships and two manned Soyuz craft in 2006.
We have no doubt that we will launch four Progress and two Soyuz spacecraft in 2006.
Perminov said he hoped Russia would continue to cooperate with the United States, primarily in using Russian spacecraft to ensure the maintenance of the ISS.

This is all while Nasa Aims to Stimulate Commercial ISS resupply services

NASA intends to spend around $500 million over the next several years subsidizing development of commercial services for delivering cargo and possibly people to the International Space Station (ISS).
NASA hopes the investment will allow one or more firms to demonstrate by 2010–-if not sooner—that they are capable of delivering cargo and perhaps even crew to the space station

Of course we know Griffin's stance on handing out funds just because a company says that they can do it with these in the running to provide such service.

Several U.S. entrepreneurial firms have expressed interest in the NASA-funded flight demonstration program, which was unveiled formally here Nov. 1 during an Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Industry Day. Those firms include Constellation Services International of Woodland Hills, Calf.; SpaceDev of Poway, Calif.; Space Exploration Technologies of El Segundo, Calif.; and t/Space of Reston, Va. Also taking a look at the program are more traditional NASA contractors including Houston-based Spacehab, Chicago-based Boeing, Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin and Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman.

Of course the amount of service depends on how much as well as how often with this as a goal.

NASA’s space station resupply needs in any given year could be anywhere from zero to 10 metric tons of cargo.

To top this all off Nasa has had to not only deal with the loss of life and a shuttle. It has also had to deal with a couple of years that have had terrific damage done by the Atlantic sponed Huricane seasons. This being finally toped off with the continued effort to return shuttles to flight with again more External tank foam issues.

The number of Newmars threads of topic are numerous but we all know that in the end it comes down to funding and making sure that you are fugal with the funds that you are given. Not asking for more and say that projects have cost overruns.
Nasa is being battered from many sides and just plain needs to get its ship in order or there will be no more Nasa sooner or later.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-08 11:40:53

While Nasa hopes to entice the private sector to build rockets for the resupply of the ISS. The Russians have been able to succeed where Nasa has faultered but of the rest of the ISS partners it has been a rough go with japan having troubles and ESA's not really ever getting the full funding that it really needed. Slow but surely thou they have kept with it and are close to getting the first ATV ready for flight.

Technical Challenges Push The Launch Of The ATV To 2007

Today, about 98 percent of the hardware for Jules Verne, Europe's first Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) spaceship, considered to be the most complex space vehicle ever developed in Europe, is already assembled and almost ready to fly.

The new vehicle was to have been scheduled for a maiden flight in September 2004 but has yet to fly. The ship is capable of docking with the Station's Zvezda Service Module. Other facts about the Atv are its ability to carry at least 7.4 tons of payload. That would include water, oxygen and propellant. Four tonnes of the propellant will be used to reboost the Station at regular intervals; another 860 kg will be transferred to the Station for attitude and orbit control. Sure would take a burden off the progress ships that have faultered recently to do so. Hopefully they can meet there scheduel.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-08 21:21:25

In the other thread on the ISS and mars woes a question of Nasa budget being cut was indicated. but in reallity it is not a budget cut but rather a statement of insufficient funding though the funding issue really revolves around the developement funding for the CEV and CLV being indicated as a shuttle ISS funding short fall. Since the CEV and CLV are Shuttle derived rockets one can draw the lines I hope to this same conclusion.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-09 08:40:31

Once the INA amendment is signed into law, NASA will be able to pay Russia’s Federal Space Agency for Soyuz launches to transport ISS crews and have the capsule continue to act as an emergency vehicle.

NASA is also expected to have to pay Russia for future resupply flights as uncertainty over the number of Space Shuttle flights remaining means the US agency’s responsibilities for ISS logistics are also in doubt.

Granted both actions are needed while shuttle does not fly but long after it is retired we will still need both capabilities until the CEV and CLV are ready for flight.

As it stands NASA is soliciting proposals for demonstrator flights of cargo from private industry. The agency plans on one or more of these flights with either an external unpressurised or internal pressurised cargo delivery method. Thus culminating in a rendezvous and docking with the ISS and either disposal or reentry and recovery of such vehicles is optional.

Assuming a successful demonstration by 2010, NASA says it may issue a request for proposals for commercial services to resupply the ISS until at least 2015. Thus taking a big burden out of the launch cycle of the CEV and CLV.

Nasa plans on a final solicitation in early December, with a responses due by late January as to a possible agreement and scheduled to be signed in May next year for such ISS resupply cargo capability.

Josh Cryer · 2005-11-09 11:50:39

Locked the old one, thanks SpaceNut, let's keep the reset cycle going even though phpBB presumbably can handle many thousand posts per thread. It keeps discussion active... although... no one is responding to you! Hah!

Erm.

Is it a sad testiment to NASA that Russia seems to be doing all the work on ISS now?

SpaceNut · 2005-11-09 13:05:11

Thanks

Ya there are those that feel that ISS and Shuttle should die a quick death so as to losen the rope from Nasa neck so as to allow the exploration vision to begin. Thou it may be a sad day when Nasa must do this, maybe it has been a wake up call that they have been needing for quite some time.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-09 22:45:47

Hope you do not mind pulling this forward:

But this is different, because this time, its TRUE
The number one problem with rockets that cannot be surmounted is that you only get a certain amount of energy for a certain mass of rocket fuel. The mass of the fuel is controlled by the mass of the atomic nucleus, and the thing is we are already using the lightest practical atoms. Hydrogen imparticularly has the lowest possible atomic mass, with only one particle in the nucleus, and Oxygen is number two on the list of oxidizing power per mass.

Future thoughts have always revolved around trying to blow up such space rocks but now there are efforts under way to try and use gravitation attraction to tow it out of the way.
Here are a number of links each has differing info contained in each.
Gravity-Powered Asteroid Tractor Proposed to Thwart Impact
'Gravity tractor' to deflect Earth-bound asteroids
[url=http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051107/full/051107-7.html]Gravity tractors beat bombs
Any threatening asteroids just need a nudge, say astronauts.[/url]

What I am wondering is if we are capable of creating gravitaional tractor can we do the reverse and create a repulsor that would allow use to move our ships though space more effectively than with chemical or nuclear power?

SpaceNut · 2005-11-09 22:56:51

If tspace can get there act together than it may be possible for nasa to get its wish for a cargo hauler that is in the private sector.

NASA seeks private space-ferries

NASA is looking to private companies to launch both supplies and astronauts to the International Space Station, it announced this week.
The agency will form a separate office at Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas to coordinate contracted trips to the station. It will be called the Commercial Crew/Cargo Project Office (CC/CPO). On 22 November, NASA is scheduled to officially request proposals from companies, who must submit their ideas by 27 January 2006.

But what is the carrot that will get the private industry interested.

NASA administrator Michael Griffin told the US house science committee that the agency expects to invest about $500 million in the commercial cargo and crew project over five years. "That kind of a financial incentive [...] will be sufficient to allow substantial providers to emerge,”

Looks like Nasa is asking again to funnel funds in order to get to the end goal and in later years asking for more to make up the short fall.

John Creighton · 2005-11-09 23:10:05

Hope you do not mind pulling this forward:
But this is different, because this time, its TRUE
The number one problem with rockets that cannot be surmounted is that you only get a certain amount of energy for a certain mass of rocket fuel. The mass of the fuel is controlled by the mass of the atomic nucleus, and the thing is we are already using the lightest practical atoms. Hydrogen imparticularly has the lowest possible atomic mass, with only one particle in the nucleus, and Oxygen is number two on the list of oxidizing power per mass.
Future thoughts have always revolved around trying to blow up such space rocks but now there are efforts under way to try and use gravitation attraction to tow it out of the way.
Here are a number of links each has differing info contained in each.
Gravity-Powered Asteroid Tractor Proposed to Thwart Impact
'Gravity tractor' to deflect Earth-bound asteroids
[url=http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051107/full/051107-7.html]Gravity tractors beat bombs
Any threatening asteroids just need a nudge, say astronauts.[/url]
What I am wondering is if we are capable of creating gravitaional tractor can we do the reverse and create a repulsor that would allow use to move our ships though space more effectively than with chemical or nuclear power?

You post seems out of place but anyway the method of towing asteroids just uses the natural gravitational attraction. It is nothing from startreck.

publiusr · 2005-11-10 14:46:54

My thoughts on the Space tractor:

http://www.spacefellowship.com/Forum/about1510.html
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php … post598527

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-10 19:10:57

Gravity tractor? Uh, did you know that it actually DOES use rocket fuel, right?

The tractor has to expend fuel to maintain its hover over the target asteroid, or else it doesn't work.

There is nothing magical or especially clever about the idea of the gravity tractor, it has to burn the same amount of fuel to pull the rock gently as it does to push it gently.

And no, you can't use gravity to push anything.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-11 08:02:59

Sorry should have posted about the use of gravitons in the propulsion thread instead.

On the not of the ISS the already docked progress 19 that had previously failed while firing has had a successful burn this time raising the station approximately 8 km or 4.5 miles. This still is not all that great seing that it is only 220 miles up. A far cry from where the station started it build at.

The INA act has been modified and the us of the soyuz as a means to transport US astronauts has all but gone though as well. To ensure that the US has representation on board the station for the forseeable future. NASA is planning to order two Soyuz manned spacecraft and two Progress cargo ships from the Russian Federal Space Agency on a commercial basis for missions to the International Space Station.

Russia is continuing to do it part to aid with the completion of the station and possibly has future thoughts for it use. Russian space official reveals projected Moon spending

Though the article leads off with work to use the Energia Rocket for a projected 2 billion lunar program, it was further do that caught my eye.

Using serially produced rockets to launch space modules into orbit, using the International Space Station (ISS) as an assembly facility for spacecraft, which will make flights to the Moon,

This allows for smaller rockets to bring up the pieces to build a much larger rocket in orbit with there much cheaper launchers than one large expesive one as currently proposed by the US.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-11 08:40:09

"Russia is continuing to do it part to aid with the completion of the station"

Yep, by kicking us in the ribs when we're down to score cheap political points and a measly $100M. Way to go, back-stabbing Ruskies! Its not like you wouldn't be flying those Soyuz capsules anyway... what a way to show your gratitude for us footing ~90% of the ISS costs, helping to prop up Mir for years, and keeping you in the space business. Particularly after defrauding us by dragging your heels and holding your modules hostage to NASA back at the beginning of construction (to the tune of $600M). Gee I'm glad that we've got the Russians on board...

As far as a Russian Lunar program, thats not too far from being a complete joke. You can't build anything really big at the ISS since that would make it impossible to turn the station without the torque putting undue stress on modules. And this is on top of the payload penalty that you pay getting to the ISS at all.

The "ISS way of building things" has, by and large, proven to be a failure with todays' technology. Piecemeal construction with small rockets will greatly increase complexity, cost, and risk of an already difficult proposition. And frankly, Russia has built a pretty good reputation of announcing space projects to garner PR, but not actually carrying through.

RobertDyck · 2005-11-11 08:51:42

As mentioned before it would seem that Russia is still in a sort of hardball playing position with the only ride in town with this jab directed at Nasa while proceeding to place modules on there list of deliveries to the ISS.
Russia to add two modules to ISS
Russia will deliver into orbit in 2008-09 a laboratory and a research modules to the International Space Station (ISS).
As for an energy module, he said that Russia would not launch this module “if the US meets us halfway and secures energy until 2010-15”.
“If the American side refuses – even though such statements have not sounded during preliminary consultations, or is unable to launch it on shuttles, Roskosmos is going to deliver the energy module to the ISS on its own using the carrier rocket Proton,” Perminov said.

The Science Power Platform was originally part of the design for Mir-2. When US space station Alpha and Russian space station Mir-2 were merged to form ISS, this was one of the original design components. The ISS construction plan was to deliver it with 6 Proton launches. It is critical to provide power to Russian laboratory modules, but later proposals cancelled it in favour of using power from one of the 4 American solar arrays. Many documents on the web claim that since it doesn't provide power to the American side, "it is not crucial to the success of the whole ISS project." Ah hah! And now there's a proposal to reduce Shuttle flights to ISS by cancelling the 4th American solar array. With comments like that why would you be surprised by this response from Russia? Frankly, I hope they do launch SPP themselves. After all, it was originally going to be launched by Russian rockets anyway.

As for a new module, remember Russia de-orbited Mir in favour of ISS. They also merged their next space station, Mir-2, with American station Alpha to form ISS. Since they lost the race to the Moon, Russia has been the leader with space stations. They built Salyut-1 before Skylab, and followed that with Salyut-2 through -7, then with Mir. Yes, Salyut-2 was an utter failure, but they didn't give up. Now Russian Mir-2 is fully integrated with American Alpha to form ISS. They're now committed and dependant on America to fulfill its contribution.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-11 14:04:18

NASA is planning to order two Soyuz manned spacecraft and two Progress cargo ships from the Russian Federal Space Agency on a commercial basis for missions to the International Space Station.

What is not said with the reference to the purchase is when will they be used which could be after the shuttles retirement, how much will they costs the US and does this discourage private industry from developing the cargo capability that Nasa does want for the ISS.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-16 07:39:10

In an effort to lower future cost needs from current budget use many science experiments and more are being either cut out totally, delayed for there need or down right cancelled.

The project cost savings for this action is a mere $344 million which is not all that much of a savings when compared to 3 to 5 billion for shuttle and almost the same for the ISS.

Space station research faces axe as Nasa cuts $344m to save Moon and Mars quest

RobertDyck · 2005-11-16 11:02:29

Do I have to remind you of all the failed projects NASA has attempted in the last decade? X-33, DC-X, a proposal to abandon Hubble, and now ISS as well? They were going to abandon the X-43 program after the first failure of X-43A, but persevered, the last 2 tests were successful. Now there's an announcement that a contract has been awarded to continue the X-43 program. They finally got something right. Now you're asking them to abandon ISS? Why would congress trust NASA with a Moon/Mars program if they can't finish any major undertaking? The fits and starts of the X-43 program were only overcome because it's a small, inexpensive UAV. Any Moon/Mars program will have as many set-backs as ISS, if NASA can't overcome them then Moon/Mars will be just as doomed. Why spend billions of dollars on the project when the agency in charge has demonstrated repeatedly that it can't complete a project that large. Yes, the ISS is a test of NASA's ability to do its job. It's time to stop trying to slash ISS and just get the damn thing finished quickly.

SpaceNut · 2005-11-16 11:36:20

Here in lays the problem is in how to off load the 15 plus shuttle flights without the use of a shuttle .. which is the only means to bring modules to the station in order to complete its assembly. It sure does seem that Nasa can do no right at this time...

SpaceNut · 2005-11-16 13:24:24

While many programs far term in the science arena are being cut by Nasa on a recent trourist first class some science did get preformed in the areas being cut.

Dr Greg Olsen Speaks To ESA's ISS Business Club

Under an agreement with ESA, Dr Olsen participated in the research programme on board the ISS where he acted as a test subject for three experiments.
These aimed to study the response of the human body to the microgravity environment and were designed to shed light on processes that cause discomfort and pain to millions, such as nausea, lower back pain, and changes to the body's bacterial flora.

So I guess another question would be of how much would Nasa pay for the data of this experiment since it seems to be not willing to pay direct funding of such programs or simply does Nasa already have that answer....

John Creighton · 2005-11-16 13:31:18

Do I have to remind you of all the failed projects NASA has attempted in the last decade? X-33, DC-X, a proposal to abandon Hubble, and now ISS as well? They were going to abandon the X-43 program after the first failure of X-43A, but persevered, the last 2 tests were successful. Now there's an announcement that a contract has been awarded to continue the X-43 program. They finally got something right. Now you're asking them to abandon ISS? Why would congress trust NASA with a Moon/Mars program if they can't finish any major undertaking? The fits and starts of the X-43 program were only overcome because it's a small, inexpensive UAV. Any Moon/Mars program will have as many set-backs as ISS, if NASA can't overcome them then Moon/Mars will be just as doomed. Why spend billions of dollars on the project when the agency in charge has demonstrated repeatedly that it can't complete a project that large. Yes, the ISS is a test of NASA's ability to do its job. It's time to stop trying to slash ISS and just get the damn thing finished quickly.

Unfortunately along with learning the science and engineering you must also learn where to spend the science and engineering dollars. Often this can only be done by trial and error. If we throw away this knowledge and continue to pour money into past mistakes we are condemned to repeat them and will hinder the future science and engineering developments.

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-16 14:03:54

Do I have to remind you of all the failed projects NASA has attempted in the last decade? X-33, DC-X, a proposal to abandon Hubble, and now ISS as well? They were going to abandon the X-43 program after the first failure of X-43A, but persevered, the last 2 tests were successful. Now there's an announcement that a contract has been awarded to continue the X-43 program. They finally got something right. Now you're asking them to abandon ISS? Why would congress trust NASA with a Moon/Mars program if they can't finish any major undertaking? The fits and starts of the X-43 program were only overcome because it's a small, inexpensive UAV. Any Moon/Mars program will have as many set-backs as ISS, if NASA can't overcome them then Moon/Mars will be just as doomed. Why spend billions of dollars on the project when the agency in charge has demonstrated repeatedly that it can't complete a project that large. Yes, the ISS is a test of NASA's ability to do its job. It's time to stop trying to slash ISS and just get the damn thing finished quickly.

What is it with you and this fixation on "finishing" things without considering any context? Its foolish and irresponsable to trudge through and "finish" something "just because." Is it worse for NASA to finish something stupid, or is it better to cancel stupid projects? I affirm that it is the latter, that it is better for NASA to repent and make ammends for doing foolish things then it is for NASA to do foolish things just to prove they can.

The guiding principle for deciding if a given project is foolish or not should be the same as most other enterprises, what do you get for the investment?. What value does the project have if you accomplish it? Is it worthwhile to follow through with the project?

The DC-X? No, without the invention of a hyper-light composites, next-generation system reliability, and probobly super-light heat shielding it proboly would have failed. It would have been too heavy to fly with a reasonable payload, and without slushed hydrogen wouldn't have much volume either.

The X-33 would never have worked either for much the same reason, not enough volume and the mass fraction would never have come out. It might have been enough to lob smaller satelites, but the capital cost to build the things (easily billions each) would offset RLV savings.

Hubble? Fixing Hubble makes no sense, because the cost of a Shuttle mission is so great, the non-repairable parts of the scope' so old, and modern mirror materials/sensors so superior that you would get a lighter, better, longer-lived scope' for less money. Fixing Hubble is a bad use of NASA's money, not to mention would foul up a precious Shuttle flight, and oh yeah risk the crews' lives for nothing. Hubble's science has been spectacular, but the stars will be there tomorrow, and Hubble should not be exempt from cost/bennefit & risk analyses.

The X-43, as sucessful as it was, has no real bearing on NASA for the next twenty years or so. Scramjets simply do not provide enough performance with today's technology to make them worthwhile for Shuttle-II, and chances that they would be good for civil aviation any time soon are nil. Their only use would be for military aircraft & missiles. Another bad use of NASA money.

The Space Shuttle, aka the "Golden Goose," was obviously a horrible, terrible use of money. But for NASA, that was okay, since it was actually a "good" thing that it turned out to be such a boondoggle. With the massive workforce entrenched, the money would flow into NASA (and states that NASA is in) indefinatly thanks to political inertia. As advertised, there is no way to portray Shuttle as anything but a total failure.

And the International Space Station... the final price tag is now projected at about $175,000,000,000 dollars, including remaining Shuttle missions and future upkeep with CEV. Stand back and think about that figure for a minute...

NASA projected, back in the 90s, that the DRM Mars plan would cost in the region of $65Bn. Given some creep and inflation, call it $100Bn. NASA will wind up spending nearly double the cost to put men on Mars... for what? What really? For some poorly applicable biology experiments? A little materials science now and then? Keep Russia in the rocket business? A few good photo shoots with ESA/JAXA execs? NASA could fly science racks just fine on X-34 SMV and skip the "space station" alltogether for much less then building and tending ISS.

...basically nothing

for $175,000,000,000.00...

If this is not a stupid project to follow through, then there is no such thing. But there is hope! Because NASA has only spent a bit more then half of this sum already. The rest of it has yet to be paid out, and it can be saved! All that needs to be done is to admit that times have changed and that NASA must leave orbit or die, and that the ISS is both a failure and a roadblock... and pull the plug. Just do this thing, cast off the ISS, and all of NASA budget woes disappear. Just like that. So is it really more foolish to throw HUGE money after bad, or is it worse for NASA to admit the obvious and do the logical?

SpaceNut · 2005-11-16 14:29:26

The DC-X? No, without the invention of a hyper-light composites, next-generation system reliability, and probobly super-light heat shielding it proboly would have failed. It would have been too heavy to fly with a reasonable payload, and without slushed hydrogen wouldn't have much volume either.

Agreed while being a failure for Earth launch would it have been for Mars?

Hubble? Fixing Hubble makes no sense,

Agreed better science for less by building HOP but those holding the purse string (congress) can not see it... how do we change there mind set.

The Space Shuttle, aka the "Golden Goose,"

But Could we end run the game stop all shuttle flights if we build the SDV HLLV first so as to get the modules that can only be delivered by a shuttle into orbit so as to get the station complete? But this does preclude the question that Completing the station for just the sake of completing it is yes for the wrong reason. This said I think these questions need answering first before deciding fully on shuttle and the station.

What is the stations full science agenda at this point in time? Does it justify completing it by what ever means? Is there a future for what is already in orbit and does this justify doing more to better complete it for the future use?

GCNRevenger · 2005-11-16 15:38:28

Even if Shuttle were grounded perminantly starting tomorrow, it probobly wouldn't save that much money to build the ISS with the HLLV instead. Another ~$40-50Bn or so would be spent just on ISS upkeep and launching CEVs to man/supply the station, another several billion would be needed to develop the HLLV tug to bring modules to the station safely, and another few billion for the HLLVs themselves. In short, it would still cost some ~$50-60Bn even if we went with the HLLV option and discount the cost of its development. While this would be better than the $70-80Bn that would be burned if Shuttle were to maintain funding and be dedicated to ISS construction, its like being shot in the leg with a smaller caliber bullet.

So $175,000,000,000 or ~$145,000,000,000 for nothing... eliminating the ISS would still save enough money to get us to the Moon or Mars.

RobertDyck · 2005-11-16 15:39:45

Actually, no. In the 1990s the NASA budget guys did an estimate of Mars Direct. Robert Zubrin didn't estimate cost, he focused on the technology. The NASA budget guys said it would cost $20 billion for initial development and the first mission, plus $2 billion per mission; or $30 billion for 7 missions. That means they could save some money by committing up-front to 7 missions: buy 6 get 1 free. But NASA designed DRM and the same budget guys estimated $55 billion for 7 missions. Again that price was in the 1990s. They use the number 7 because 7 Apollo missions were launched to the Moon: Apollo 11 through 17. Apollo 13 wasn't successful but it was launched. Earlier Apollo missions were technology tests; they weren't intended to land on the Moon.

Cost figures I've read for the station estimate the budget will still remain just barely below $100 billion including all utilization flights. Don't let partisan politicians scare you, dig deeper.

DC-X and X-33 are not the designs I would have chosen, but if you spend the money on a big expensive project you should see it through. Once you commit to spend that much money you better see a benefit. All projects will have their political opposition and contractors trying to gouge the American taxpayer. If you let projects fail for those reasons then you'll never get anything accomplished.

X-43 is not as far ahead as you think. Under Ronald Regan's administration there was an attempt to build the National AeroSpace Plane. The technology demonstrator was the X-30. It proved to be too much in a single go, that's why the X-43 program is using small test vehicles and building up in relatively small increments. Engines have already been demonstrated in wind tunnels. Also remember that from 1924 to the end of World War 2 the Germans developed aircraft technology from fabric, wood and wire biplanes to aluminum skin jet fighters. They experimented with all configurations of wings: swept-back for high speed flight near the speed of sound, delta wing, flying wing, every conceivable wing configuration. The only ones they didn't develop were lifting bodies and the odd hypersonic lifting body of the X-43. Even the F-86 Sabre and Mig-15 which faced each other in the Korean War were developed from German swept wing aircraft. The politics of Nazis were bad but German engineers have always been very good. If they can accomplish that much in 2 decades, the first 12 years of which had to be hidden because the Treaty of Versailles prohibited them from developing aircraft, then why can't American engineers accomplish a single aircraft in 23+ years? Remember the Copper Canyon project ran from 1982 to 1985; X-43 is building on that technology.

Yea, the space shuttle is not the design I would have liked. I would have preferred the lifting body TSTO fully reusable design from the original requirements in 1968. Yes, the space station is not the design I would have liked either. I would have preferred a Skylab workshop launched as a self-launching module on a Saturn 1B, followed by a second Skylab module to form the station core; as originally proposed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Two launches of a Saturn 1B and a smaller shuttle to service it would make a lot more sense. But we have what we have.

I still remind you we need to incrementally test all equipment like the 1960s space program. Remember Gemini was never intended to be a program of its own; it was a technology demonstrator for the Apollo program. Rather than dragging out that point, I again remind you we need to test life support equipment in LEO before committing astronauts to Mars. The best place to do that is ISS. There are several science experiments that can best be done in a space station. Rather than waste the money spent, finish it and make use of it.

For another thing we need to get peoples minds changed to think "Can Do". They need to commit themselves to successful completion of a major project rather than wasting time and money arguing whether it should be scrapped with every little setback. A project as large as building a lunar base or significant scientific exploration of the Moon will have more setbacks than ISS; Mars even more. As long as people argue for cancellation with every setback there will never be any progress with anything.

BWhite · 2005-11-16 16:05:23

In the 1990s the NASA budget guys did an estimate of Mars Direct. Robert Zubrin didn't estimate cost, he focused on the technology. The NASA budget guys said it would cost $20 billion for initial development and the first mission, plus $2 billion per mission; or $30 billion for 7 missions.

$10 billion for 6 follow on missions. $416 million per person.

Delete the Earth return equipment and starting at mission #8 you might be down to $200 million per permanent colonist going one way to stay.

Less than one might think, at first.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-11-07 07:47:59

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#2 2005-11-08 11:40:53

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#3 2005-11-08 21:21:25

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#4 2005-11-09 08:40:31

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#5 2005-11-09 11:50:39

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#6 2005-11-09 13:05:11

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#7 2005-11-09 22:45:47

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#8 2005-11-09 22:56:51

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#9 2005-11-09 23:10:05

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#10 2005-11-10 14:46:54

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#11 2005-11-10 19:10:57

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#12 2005-11-11 08:02:59

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#13 2005-11-11 08:40:09

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#14 2005-11-11 08:51:42

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#15 2005-11-11 14:04:18

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#16 2005-11-16 07:39:10

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#17 2005-11-16 11:02:29

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#18 2005-11-16 11:36:20

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#19 2005-11-16 13:24:24

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#20 2005-11-16 13:31:18

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#21 2005-11-16 14:03:54

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#22 2005-11-16 14:29:26

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#23 2005-11-16 15:38:28

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#24 2005-11-16 15:39:45

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#25 2005-11-16 16:05:23

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer