CEV is Bullshi...

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-08 21:24:50

What Bush didn't say - 2006-02-02
What was not in President Bush's State of the Union message was deafeningly loud bad news for NASA. Bush spoke of the need to reign in discretionary non-defence spending, except for a few research and education programs he mentioned specifically. Going to the moon or Mars was not one of these. With NASA patron DeLay out of the picture, it looks like hard days for the CEV. The snow man is melting. First Mars was gone (no methane fuel or ISRU)… now the moon is gone (no Cargo LV or Block II CEV funded); the cargo-delivery Block IB versions of the CEV have been deleted; and finally the earth-orbit Block I CEV is now being trimmed down to a diameter and mass that makes CLV development unnecessary. The ISS, the wallflower at NASA's big party, suddenly begins to look attractive again. Retaining continuing access to the ISS may be the only reason the CEV is funded.
http://www.astronautix.com/Mambo/
The parallels to the shuttle program are like an icicle in the heart. The shuttle was only one part of a grand 1969 NASA vision of giant space stations, lunar bases, and Mars expeditions. After 40 years the shuttle managed to get only part of the way into the space station part of that vision. Now the CEV was part of a grand 2005 NASA vision of lunar bases and Mars expeditions. And it may survive only as a way of completing that same 1969-era space station…

Whine whine "oh NASA is doomed" etc etc... Again, you are just pontificating until you have facts. "the snow man is melting" you say, why? Since Tom DeLay is gone? Thats your portent of doom for the agency? Bush didn't mention NASA during his SotU because space is not big on the average voters mind, so if he spent time on it then he would be skewerd for talking about something not relevent to most Americans. He can't win in your eyes and everyone elses, so he picked everyone else.

"First Mars was gone (no methane fuel or ISRU)"

What the heck are you talking about? Again, the methane engine is not needed for CEV at any point for any purpose, it was always a luxury item. Why is deleting one unessesarry and time-consuming luxury item from the CEV suddenly death for Mars? NASA has to get the CEV flying, and if its not needed then it shouldn't be included. And we will have ISRU, Lockheed is going to build an Ilmenite-to-LOX generator for the Moon.

"(no Cargo LV or Block II CEV funded); the cargo-delivery Block IB versions of the CEV have been deleted"

So what? There is only one reason to build a cargo version of the CEV, the ISS. Except for that one reason, the need to lug cargo to it, there would be absolutely no need for any varient of the CEV. None. Building the ISS is part of the VSE, maintaining its need for cargo is not, if the Russians want to keep it up there then great.

"the earth-orbit Block I CEV is now being trimmed down to a diameter and mass that makes CLV development unnecessary."

No its not! The CEV is just being trimmed down to a less spacious size, since a 5.5m capsule is too big. You could put five men in the Apollo capsule if you had to and it was hardly 3m around, so a 5m capsule should be plenty for four men. It also matches the booster better, since the bigger SRB will be doing more of the lifting and the upper stage can thus be smaller.

Of all the EELVs, only the big Delta-IV heavy would have the capacity to launch the Lunar CEV and you'd need either it or the Atlas-V 551 to launch the Earth orbit version. Neither of these rockets is man-rated, and it would be hard to make them that way, particularly given the numbers of engines involved and the difficulty of aborting during any point of acent. The big Delta also requires extensive assembly and probably can't be flown on a tight schedule needed to meet the Lunar vehicle before its fuel boils off. The CLV just makes sense, the engines are already essentially man-rated, its a simpler rocket so its more responsive, its based on the most reliable large rockets ever, and it provides plenty of performance.

This link you provide is also to Astronautix.com, which is staunchly, ardently anti-CEV, Russia-worshiping, and perpetually seeing the demise of NASA behind every turn for whatever flimsy reason. Even a few posts down, look and see, is "the only way to save NASA is to do exactly what I say." How tired, how haughty, how ignorant... The writer also has no clue whats involved with man-rating, that its not just reliability of the vehicle, that for this magical cure-all safety system requires extensive telemetry links, sensors, and sophisticated software on the booster to work that satelite launchers lack. The EELVs flight path makes anytime-abort harder too, since its slower acceleration puts you over the middle of the ocean instead of nearer to shore. Also, this notion that "just fly it a whole lot and call it man rated" has any bearing on the reliability is nonsense, it doesn't matter how many times it flies if the risk is still high.

Mark Wade imparticularly hates the CEV, because its design is brute force and over-design instead of engineering "elegance" and super-light-weight. Which, given the present situation, is stupid. Theres no nice way to stay it, its a stupid reason to not like the CEV: NASA is going to build the CLV since the EELVs probobly aren't suitable, so what if the CEV is heavier? Its going to cost the same the CLV to lift 25MT as it does 20MT, why the crying fuss over the extra six tonnes of fuel? This is a dead giveaway that the writer isn't rational, ignoring this simple fact in the preceeding sentence.

And hey, that magic cure-all EELV escape system? Past a certain point in the acent, its safer to try and go for orbit then to slow down from hypersonic speeds and land safely someplace, so that extra fuel would make abort-to-orbit much easier, duh! And when you are going to visit the ISS, that extra fuel would let you come back down where you want, when you want, instead of having to wait for your orbit to line up with your desired landing site. Handy in an emergency, no? Idiot!

I believe NASA will suceed with the CEV and the CLV, these are not unreasonable goals, and NASA has enough money to pull off the whole VSE once Shuttle is gone in a few years and Griffin focuses the agency on exploration instead of coddling scientists. Look and see that the VSE plan is not unreasonable, the CEV/CLV are not outlandish, Griffin may ditch SSME for RS-68 (saveing billions and putting NASA ahead of politics), and the big CaLV with a stretch EDS could send a DRM-III style ship to Mars (no nuke engines required). One main reason for my faith is simple, that if NASA doesn't, then NASA will cease to exsist. Thats what I call "motivation."

SpaceNut · 2006-04-10 12:46:37

VSE: Less steroids or less Apollo"the architecture surrounding the ESAS (Exploration Systems Architecture Study) has grown too heavy for its launch vehicles. "

Though we may be able to get Da Stick flying sooner at the expense of not coming up with a better solution to the SSME vs Rs68 and other changes of which seems to have gone beyound the baseline weight to which Nasa had been shooting.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-11 09:24:51

This doesn't sound very good to me... basically, I surmize:

-The original ESAS plan didn't take ESAS propellant boiloff into account, and this new study does for a ninety day loiter before heading to the Moon. No doubt because NASA doesn't know how easy it will be to fly CLV yet.

-This study takes into account lower predicted performance figures from the "expendable SSME (RS-25F)," switch from two J-2S to one J-2X for EDS, and the switch from methane to hypergolics for CEV-SM/LSAM acent module.

-Proposes three options
1) A strip down "LEM 2.0" with only two crew and no ability to reach the poles. The only mission that currently fits within mass budgets.

2) Direct flight with a near-baseline LSAM with L2 redezvous for Earth return later. Very close to within mass budgets, CLV has excess payload and CaLV has a little less then needed; workable with propellant transfer?

3) Baseline ESAS plan with boiloff and lower performance propellants is unworkable and exceeds the payload of both CLV and CaLV.
_______________________________________________

Basically, NASA has some thinking to do before it goes and signs any contracts...

-Losing methane hurts the budget (though probobly doesn't tip any scales), can the methane engine be done if the CEV date is pushed back to 2014 instead of 2012? May the ISS be danged.

-Doesn't take into account a wider diameter CaLV core with RS-68 engines, does this make any difference?

-One J-2X instead of two J-2S for EDS, a good trade after all?

-A big reason for the decreased payloads is the 90day EDS loiter.

-Could LSAM acent be switched to Hydrogen?

Remember though, NASA faced the same problems back in the Apollo days that they face now, that the numbers don't add up unless you make more powerful rockets, which ultimatly resulted in the monster Saturn-V.

However, it seems that the rush to get the CEV flying that bumped the Methane engine might be more signifigant then I first though, and it seems more and more clear that "Shuttle derived" won't be.

One solution mentioned on the NASA SpaceFlight message board: add another pair of SRBs to the big CaLV. This would increase per-launch price by $60-80M+, but that would solve all the problems.

I will say however, that if NASA settles on the strip-down LSAM (and I hope they don't) it still won't be the end of the world, the LSAM/CaLV combo should still be able to deliver large enough payloads for a Lunar base, and the LSAM will still be big enough for four if all they are doing is shuttling to a Lunar base, the only "fatal" drawback is the inability to reach the Lunar poles.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-11 12:49:43

Ciclops had this to say about the revelation in Interplanetary Transportation:

Note that this is speculation based on leaked undated internal working documents (assuming these are true NASA docs). There is no such conclusion in the presented docs, furthermore it is unclear in what context this work is being performed. It is standard practice to work through complex problems in this way, creating scenarios and extreme cases in order to expose weaknesses and reduce risk.
(It's hard to see that this is in anyway helpful to NASA's work to have their files publicly distributed, although it clearly helps journalists make money and bash NASA)

Rxke · 2006-04-14 07:35:07

Hah!

The article has been retracted, because it was for internal use, part of an ongoing study AND had been doctored to reflect one person's view!

We also understand that the data was altered to support the position of the person who provided the information that was used in the article

Also, in order to clarify our reasoning, further evaluations show that two of the studies featured in the story - the minimal lander and L2 concept of operations - represent extreme concepts that are being investigated to understand requirements affecting costs and performance.
Neither of these ideas, or any of the others currently being investigated, represents NASA's official direction of the lunar architecture, while failing in supportive information after further self-investigation of our information.

:shock:

Rxke · 2006-04-14 07:39:19

I hope they nail his balls to a door... :twisted:

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-14 08:16:53

Figures, NASA Spaceflight trusting what they see on a message board post heh...

It does seem to be indesputable, that there are people in NASA that want to monkey-wrench VSE for whatever reason. NASA has jealously protected the status quo since the day after Apollo was shut down, including deception and lies, so some resistance is to be expected I suppose. I think Griffin's job is harder then anyone really realizes. (See also, Jeffery Bell... whos portent of doom is again felled)

But really, think about it: the ESAS plan has about 20-25% more mass available to it than Apollo, the lander is burning Hydrogen that should greatly increase payload, and both vehicles will be built with lighter materials. Its unreasonable to think that it will not have much greater performance than Apollo ever did. (And people like Bell know it too)

SpaceNut · 2006-04-14 08:42:58

Part of the problem with the designs are definetely the operation specifications, selections of mission locations for same design and finally engine changes.
Then again Nasa is seemingly betting on software tools to help solve the problems.

New NASA 'Tool Set' Will Simplify Engineers' Efforts to Better Analyze Space Travel Concepts and Missions

The new "tool set," called Low-Thrust Trajectory Tools (LTTT), will help engineers better analyze space-travel concepts and missions that use low-thrust propulsion technologies. Thrust is what propels a vehicle -- enabling massive, towering rockets to lift heavy payloads free from Earth's gravity.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-04-14 09:23:01

Hah!
The article has been retracted,

Of course it was going to be retracted, it was a leaked paper and lacked sources, his site was then suddenly being used as ammo by anti-NASA people like Bell while nasaspaceflight is pro-NASA and although the article was good it didn't have references that he could disclose
although I'm sure Nasaspaceflight's Chris could following it with a better exclusive but unlike Bell he isn't there to bash NASA he'd rather want to improve their space policy or work with them.

The fact still remains that CEV and the CLV are becoming a disaster, no amount of NASA's spin-doctoring or retractions can change this fact

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-14 10:19:28

Of course it was going to be retracted, it was a leaked paper and lacked sources, his site was then suddenly being used as ammo by anti-NASA people like Bell while nasaspaceflight is pro-NASA and although the article was good it didn't have references that he could disclose
although I'm sure Nasaspaceflight's Chris could following it with a better exclusive but unlike Bell he isn't there to bash NASA he'd rather want to improve their space policy or work with them.
The fact still remains that CEV and the CLV are becoming a disaster, no amount of NASA's spin-doctoring or retractions can change this fact

______________________________________________________________________

Just like CBS and their phony Air Nation Guard documents, huh Mars_B4_Moon? What is the term, "fake but accurate?" The documents were not simply leaked documents that NASA SpaceFlight couldn't corroborate, they were alterd and doctored so to make the ESAS plan seem even worse. They are not simply NASA's "worst case senario" being pushed as what is probably going to happen, but are faked!

But thats not a problem for you, nor is calling NASA Spaceflight a bunch of liars for pulling documents unfavorable to NASA, because these lying documents fit the story you want them to tell, don't they?

"The fact still remains that CEV and the CLV are becoming a disaster, no amount of NASA's spin-doctoring or retractions can change this fact."

You are the one, you Mars_B4_Moon, that is trying to manipulate and distort the news and discussion about the ESAS plan. What is supposition and rumor, likly from people like whoever made these documents, you now dishonestly call a "fact." You have no proof that NASA is "spin-doctoring" anything, only rumor and like-minded inuendo, that either the CEV or CLV are anything worthy of being called "disasters." If these are disasters, then come, tell us why they are and why you aren't trying to subversively manipulate the debate to your own view by ignoring the truth (or the lack thereof).

Its not a fact, and NASA isn't "spin-doctoring," you have no proof

Rxke · 2006-04-14 17:22:34

although the article was good

Huh?

If I come up with a labreport that takes WIP stuff out of context AND doctor the numbers to make my point, they'd nail me badly for cheating, and rightly so.

That article was not good, it was a LIE, plain and simple. It was no mere spin doctoring, it was cheating with facts.

If it were presented as: "here's a worst-case scenario, and I made it even a bit worse than it actually could ever be..." then I would have no problems with it (except that I'd of course would say: oh, pulling numbers out of your arse to make a doom scenario, what's the point? Maybe warning people not to slide the slippery slope, mmmkay... you may have a point...)

This looks like some major hidden agenda agent-provocateurs, trying to wreck anything NASA tries to get right, and in a *very* lowly way, I might add.

EuroLauncher · 2006-04-15 05:25:38

Jeffrey Bell again

The Wal-Mart lander and L2 rendezvous scenarios certainly are "extreme concepts", but the fact that such major changes to the original VSE plan are even under consideration is newsworthy and relevant to the ongoing public debate over this program.
And a document "for internal use only" is not classified secret.
The only substantive reason given for suppressing the LRA-0 study report is: "We also understand that the data was altered to support the position of the person who provided the information..."
This is a very serious charge.
This statement could mean either:
A) The results of a major engineering trade study were falsified to deceive NASA managers about the feasibility of the ESAS plan, or...
B) The results of the study were falsified specifically for the leak, in order to deceive the interested public who would then place external pressures on NASA.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/NASA_ … ticle.html
Either one of these scenarios is unacceptable. If anyone at NASA actually was responsible for such deception, they should be immediately escorted out of the building by security guards (as happened only last week to the Assistant Administrator for Diversity and Equal Opportunity).
Without clear and publicly available evidence to support the allegation that this document was altered for some political purpose and does not accurately describe the results of the LRA-0 study, it is impossible to know the truth.
So while awaiting such evidence, I stand by my analysis and my proposed non-extreme solutions to the problems revealed in the leaked report.

GCNRevenger · 2006-04-15 07:16:56

That should read "Jeffery Bell is at it again"

Sooo let me get this straight...:

"I based my recent article on the crisis facing the Vision for Space Exploration"

What crisis? There only crisis is still based on a foundation of rumor, leak, and lie. It is a classic dirty rhetorical device to simply dub opinion "fact" and simply avoid talking about it any other way or acknolaging that it isn't one.

"the reasons given by the editor for this action are inadequate"

Uhhh the documents were full of fake numbers. Why would a media site, supposedly dedicated to telling the truth, host documents with lies in them?

"The Wal-Mart lander and L2 rendezvous scenarios certainly are "extreme concepts", but the fact that such major changes to the original VSE plan are even under consideration is newsworthy and relevant to the ongoing public debate over this program."

Not really. In the age of decent computer modeling on every desktop, NASA tried out some really extreme ideas, like putting the CEV on top of a Shuttle tank with SSMEs under it before settling on TheStick. When Griffin says "explore all ideas" he was not kidding, and NASA in general has a taste for contingency planning.

"And a document "for internal use only" is not classified secret."

Simply because they don't carry an offical US government on-pain-of-jail classification designation, which I am certain is alot of trouble to deal with for these hundreds of documents, doesn't mean they are for public consumption.

"Without clear and publicly available evidence to support the allegation that this document was altered for some political purpose and does not accurately describe the results of the LRA-0 study, it is impossible to know the truth."

*Coughs* Which would involve giving Bell access to the real internal NASA documents. Convienant, no? Orrr maybe Bell is implying "they are only slightly alterd and the ESAS plan is still doomed."

"So while awaiting such evidence, I stand by my analysis and my proposed non-extreme solutions to the problems revealed in the leaked report."

So you are going to stand by your article, which is now confirmed to be based on lies, just because we don't know which ones are false? Talk about guilty until proven innocent... Heck, if the "data" that was alterd isn't just numbers, then maybe the whole document including the L2 scheme and the exsistance of the "Wal Mart" lander is a lie too. I find Bell's unwillingness to pull his story to be unreasonable.

Speaking of unreasonable however, I am not knee-jerk against Bell's solution to the "problem," which is to skip the CLV and use two less expensive down-rated CaLVs instead. This would be acceptable to me, particularly since it would give us a launcher the right size for Mars later, except that it would mean no flights to the ISS. Which is, unfortunatly, why his plan isn't reasonable in the current environment.

SpaceNut · 2006-04-20 12:42:22

[url=http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1145522465217630.xml&coll=2]NASA Glenn sets its sights on space travel
Director works to get new office off ground[/url]

Why CEV will be costly "Four in 10 of its 1,700 employees have advanced degrees, new data from Cleveland State University show.

Glenn workers make an average of $83,000 a year and pay more than $36 million annually in local and state government taxes. "

Gee engineers here working in NH are lucky to get half of that amount....

John Creighton · 2006-04-20 20:00:47

[url=http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1145522465217630.xml&coll=2]NASA Glenn sets its sights on space travel
Director works to get new office off ground[/url]
Why CEV will be costly "Four in 10 of its 1,700 employees have advanced degrees, new data from Cleveland State University show.
Glenn workers make an average of $83,000 a year and pay more than $36 million annually in local and state government taxes. "
Gee engineers here working in NH are lucky to get half of that amount....

Maybe they should work for the oil industry. Some engineers in the oil industry make over 100 dollars an hour. You can imagine what kind of annual salary they could pull if they could get a lot of overtime. Of course that is in Canadian dollars but I am sure there are engineers that make that in US dollars and don’t have advanced degrees. I think 80 k a year is a very reasonable amount to pay engineers with advanced degrees and perhaps years of experience. If salaries are low for engineers in NH maybe they should move to another state. The US is a big place with a lot of opertunities.

Speaking of an 80k per year salary there are trades people that make more then that. Actually the average salary in For McMurry, Alberta, is 80 k per year and it is a blue collar town. So if enginners start out making half what a trade person makes and they require more schooling, there is no reason they shouldn’t be making more later in the carrier with advanced degrees and experience.

SpaceNut · 2006-04-23 20:04:43

Just an example of what I was driving at [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12409530/]"Five reasons to skip college
Think a college education is key to a bright future? Not so fast ...[/url] By all means, go to college if you want the “university experience,” but don’t spend all that cash just on the assumption that it will lead you to a higher-paying job."

For, in truth, most professions — journalism, software engineering, sales, and trading stocks to name but a few — depend far more on “on-the-job” education than on classroom learning. Until relatively recently, lawyers, architects and pharmacists learned their trade through apprenticeship, not through higher education.

Then you have the business that feels that the are paying for the on the job and do so through low wages which seem to be for most....

publiusr · 2006-04-28 14:06:35

..Speaking of unreasonable however, I am not knee-jerk against Bell's solution to the "problem," which is to skip the CLV and use two less expensive down-rated CaLVs instead. This would be acceptable to me, particularly since it would give us a launcher the right size for Mars later.

Well put.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-07-29 17:01:44

May I be the first to say how bullsh*t this new CEV craft is. First off, we shouldn't make a jack-of-all-trades spacecraft, it's just bad principle. Space, as a term of destination, remember, is a huge generalisation. If space is anagolous to the ocean then it would be sufficient to describe the CEV as a boat. It is simply an airtight vessel capable of transporting stuff from one destination to another. Which does nothing at all to describe its capabilities, other than it's capable of being a boat. Is it a short range passenger ferry, a small dinghy, or a disposable life raft, or perhaps a house-boat? The CEV's purpose needs to be set in concrete before we start thinking about the design and funding and such. And what of this nonsense about accelerating the design schedule? Why must NASA insist on a 24/7 human presence in space? Why? Can we even afford it anyhow? I mean look at the year 2013: The CEV will be absorbing maximum funding (operational vehicle or not), the ISS will still be occupied with a full-time crew, all the while the Moon program will be demanding huge sums of money. We simply can't afford all three pursuits. We have to drop atleast one, preferably two. The ISS should go ASAP, so why can't we kill it in 2010, with the shuttle? That way we wouldn't need to accelerate CEV development, which we couldn't afford anyway, and we can put full effort into the Moon-Mars program.
We already have the ISS to hold us back, we don't need the CEV to justify the ISS when it is complete; It'll be just another shuttle. Pointless mutual justification. Kill them both and concentrate on a dedicated 'Moon vehicle', not CEV.

http://www.newscientistspace.com/articl … sions.html

RedStreak · 2006-07-29 18:56:45

CEV Designs are a joke for Large scale manned exploration !!!!!
We need development of larger space vessels for the exploration and settlement of our solar system over the next century of work ahead. Local space ( Our Solar System ) is like the industrial revolution 1800-1900s, the exploration and settlement of our planet for the last several thousand years we noe must move ahead. The CEV Designs are good for LEO business and returning from space until we come up with better transport, but it doesn't provide the long term expansion possibilities for human exploration.

That's just it. The governemnt is for better or worse short-term sighted for the most part. It will be largely Earth-biased for quite some time as long as we call Earth our main home. Don't expect magical cruiseships or solar sails until we can just establish something out there, and science alone isn't enough. Columbus didn't set sail for cataloging indigenous peoples or ocean life - he was looking to establish a trade route, and as famous as Lewis and Clarke were the Spanish and even the Russians were established on the West coast long before their exploration set off.

The CEV for LEO buisness (to a minor extent) and returning to space is exactly what we need it for. Just like Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, the Space Shuttle, and MIR the CEV will become another mode of space travel phased out just like the horse was to the automobile.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-30 13:49:21

Its not the government's job to really colonize or industrialize space, they neither could most likely nor should.

What they should do is explore places we might want to go, and help open the way to get there. For instance, going to the Moon and prospecting for minerals we might want to mine, test equipment for mining and living on the Moon, and build a fuel factory perhaps with a Lunar RLV to radically reduce the cost of travel. They should not try to do the digging and build ore haulers and all that themselves.

RedStreak · 2006-07-30 15:00:48

Its not the government's job to really colonize or industrialize space, they neither could most likely nor should.

You are right on the money GCNRevenger. Apollo was a triumph, but the fact it was relative short-lived compared to the shuttle or even MIR proves the fact the government can't indefinetely support endeavours of this magnitude.

If the government can establish a working base on either the Moon or Mars, hopefully commercial spaceflight can arrange to help support it. THAT ought to be the long-term aim of the VSE.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-30 20:09:15

I think its possible for the government to build and sustain a small base on both worlds, like 6-8 people, but little more then that without a real political sea-change of support for exploration.

RedStreak · 2006-07-30 21:37:24

I think its possible for the government to build and sustain a small base on both worlds, like 6-8 people, but little more then that without a real political sea-change of support for exploration.

6-8 would be an impressive number to sustain and I hope they put it around there, but I fear they might do as they did with the ISS at 3 or 4. :cry:

Hopefully alot of interest will come if the offer to expand this base is given to the public - for instance I'm certain a "Lunar Disney" would be an attraction. More likely I imagine science centers, observatories....

The Moon I imagine will generate alot more interest than the ISS ever possibly can. There are places surely less bland than the wide flat seas - its not just a rock its an entire world to look at.

GCNRevenger · 2006-07-30 21:47:22

I would settle for four continuously on the Moon and six on Mars

If there are going to be any Lunar observatories, they will be government orderd, built, and tended most likely. This should, however, be one of the things high on the list of science payloads once a base is established. Maybe NASA could tell the space telescope people that once JWST is done, their next telescope is going to be on the Moon, if they like it or not... It would finally get the whiney self-important astronomers with the program.

I do, unfortunatly, envision there being a period of relative indifference about a Lunar base; it will take time to build a really superior telescope on the surface to make pretty pictures, but barring some mind-numbingly expensive grand standing space tourism venture, the real attention-getter will be Platinum mining. And that is a little ways down the road, when Earthly supplies spike with Hydrogen power for transportation and the Kistlers or T/Spaces of the world get their act together.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-07-31 03:33:32

Lets look at the proposed CEV Concept for the Moon.

To launch two rockets one cargo and one humans, connect in space and travel to the moon with a lander, Then land do the surface mission then blast off leaving half the lander behind and connect with CEV command & service modules and return to earth and disgard lander and service module and return to surface in command module.

If we do launch 15 missions to moon the we are leaving junk on the planet and not using them for something else. We need to look at the Lunar missions as an extension from the earth orbit station activities. The only time we need a reentry shield is for earth atomsphere descents, So, design a separate vehicle for that leg and dock with the space station and transfer to the lunar transport vehicle, then undock with space station with thrusters , then firing main engines to the lunar surface with a custom lander ( all in one piece ) Then the lander take the human to the lunar surface and back again connect with the command module and return all (including lander ) and dock with the space station then transfer to earth re-entry vehicle while the lunar tranport vehilce gets maintenance and re-supplied.

This means a quickly turnaround for lunar missions and reduced cost in the missions working with multiple use vehicles.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2006-04-08 21:24:50

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#27 2006-04-10 12:46:37

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#28 2006-04-11 09:24:51

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#29 2006-04-11 12:49:43

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#30 2006-04-14 07:35:07

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#31 2006-04-14 07:39:19

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#32 2006-04-14 08:16:53

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#33 2006-04-14 08:42:58

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#34 2006-04-14 09:23:01

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#35 2006-04-14 10:19:28

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#36 2006-04-14 17:22:34

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#37 2006-04-15 05:25:38

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#38 2006-04-15 07:16:56

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#39 2006-04-20 12:42:22

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#40 2006-04-20 20:00:47

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#41 2006-04-23 20:04:43

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#42 2006-04-28 14:06:35

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#43 2006-07-29 17:01:44

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#44 2006-07-29 18:56:45

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#45 2006-07-30 13:49:21

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#46 2006-07-30 15:00:48

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#47 2006-07-30 20:09:15

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#48 2006-07-30 21:37:24

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#49 2006-07-30 21:47:22

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

#50 2006-07-31 03:33:32

Re: CEV is Bullshi...

Board footer