The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

Jack Chandley · 2006-09-21 07:51:33

Gents:

If I may pipe in to your squabble here:

GM is saying that what is on the drawing board is not ideal to do everything. It is indeed a compromise.

GCNR is saying that if we wait for ideal, we will never go. Compromise or stay on the ground.

The problem here is that you are both correct. I understand what you are saying and mean GM, and I agree. Orion is a compromise, and not the swiss army knife that is needed.

But, I have to believe that going and doing something is better than not doing anything, and waiting for the "perfect" craft. By the time (and a lot of it) they design the craft ideal for now, the requirements will have changed.

Look at the shuttle. It was supposed to pay for itself (in early 1970 dollars, when design started) and be that swiss army knife. Does it do a lot? Hell yeah. And it costs a bloody fortune to do it. Does it do everything? Nope. And it never did what it was supposed to do-make space cheap. Oh, yeah, and it was 2 years behind schedule.

Orion isn't perfect, but the timeframe is reasonable. To do a redesign would add years (probably 3-5 (I deal quite a bit with Gov't acquisition, and believe me when I say it is a VERY sloooow process)) to the process, and undoubtedly, some politician would muck up the process.

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-21 08:23:46

...CEV's design is not set in stone forever, but one of the main costs of Shuttle is the constant upgrading...

maybe... electronics, navigations systems, details, etc. (like with the Shuttles) NOT the main structures, dimensions, tanks, etc.

...able to perform LOC as well as TEI is not a big safety bennefit as previously explained...

double the LOI option CLEARLY doubles the missions' safety (especially with an LSS) no matter how much the "single option" si risky or safe!

...your reasons nessesitate a Lunar space station...

a small orbital module is not complex and doesn't need so much money or technology
I'm sure it will be launched before 2020 and may be part of a possible NASA/ESA/Russia cooperation (as Griffin suggested in a recent interview)

...why bother lugging fuel to slow down...

to have a safer reentry and less G for the astronauts (however, it's only an "option")

...accomplish large plane changes is unessesarry...

one good reason may be a rescue mission of a failed Orion in another orbit with an LSS-docked Orion from LSS orbit without send a new Orion from earth (that needs too much time and money)

...no need for even the TEI fuel for ISS reboost...

for ISS missions the best choice will be to send less fuel and more cargo (with a special module)

...if it rode on a miniature EDS stage burning more efficient Hydrogen. Stretching the CEV-SM to include TLI fuel is silly since you would have to use low-effiency hypergolics...

the small EDS (launched with an Ares-II or a second Ares-I) is exactly my suggestion, NOT to build a super-bigOrion with hypergolics for TLI

,,,can't even fit 3MT of Moon rocks by volume in the CEV capsule...

30 times is probably too much for a cargo-return-Orion, but a (more reasonable) "15-20 times" figure may be possible

...why would you need three tonnes of rocks? One-week missions shouldn't need but 220lbs...

I think that ALSO an one-week mission (twice the time of an Apollo missions with twice the astronauts and better tools) may gather TEN times the "220 lbs." cargo (that is only the MAX possible cargo of a manned Orion, NOT the "best cargo") and, if we will have SOON 5-10-20 times longer missions and lunar outpost, the quantity of moon samples will be in the order of dozens tons (that can't be sent on earth in 220 lbs. slices!!!)

...a Lunar base will do most of the analysis at the base, not Earth...

this is a very good claim for the "Guinness Book of Records of Space Stupidity"

1. analyze biological or geological material on the moon with instruments and scientists sent from earth is like move a giant hospital to the patient instead of send the patient to the hospital!!!

2. it's incredibly unefficient since the astronauts must use 95% of the time to do things better made on earth (!!!) instead of use 100% of their time to do a better and larger moon exploration!!!

3. it's incredibly expensive to send on the moon the instruments (like electron microscopes, etc.) and the scientists (the most expert of them too old for a travel to the moon!!!) for in situ analysis!!!

4. and it's (simply) impossible... the Apollo rocks was analyzed in dozen labs with hundreds scientists... and the geological and biological samples and experiments of the new missions and lunar base will be hundreds times the Apollo samples and that need hundreds labs, heavy instruments and thousands scientists!!! ...do you (REALLY!) want to send them on the moon???

...biology experiments on the Lunar surface? Come on. Even if you did have them, they would be at the Lunar base, and wouldn't need transport back to Earth since they would be studied on the Moon...

same problems of rock analysis plus another (big) problem: a lunar outpost will be available 10+ years after the first moon landing and we need biological data about living long time on the moon BEFORE we will go on the moon to live for long times at reduced gravity!!!!

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-21 08:53:47

The best rocket design is the most sucessful one; again you don't understand, that the engineering efficiency of the design is not the only measure of how good the design is. For a design to be sucessful, it must be efficient enough to be effective, but it must also be affordable, and must have political support. The "best" design is a ballence of all three factors, ignoring any one or two of them will ruin the project.

And why do you think the ESAS plan will be unaffordable? You keep on saying "oh it won't be!" but you never give good reasons why.

The maximum payload of the LSAM was largely determined by the payload of the Ares-V, and its payload target was set to provide this payload so we can send ~20MT base modules to the Moon.

The need for ISS sample return is going to be a bit more signifigant than for Lunar sample return, since rock samples need not be large and much of the Moon science will be done on the Moon. We could do reasonably well without brining back more than a few kilos of Moon rocks probably, the most important thing Lunar missions will return is data. The ISS on the other hand, the experiments it will carry out are more complicated than simple rock analysis, and hence analysis will need to be done on the ground and signifigant sample returns are required. More than you can stuff under the seat of a CEV capsule.

Okay, a Lunar base completed in 2030 time frame, sounds fine to me. Its certainly much better than a dinky Lunar space station that doesn't have a fuel supply nor radiation shielding. Your "LSS" won't be cheap, as it will be quite heavy, if it has to carry radiation shielding and backup solar arrays (which will need periodic replacement).

Changing the CEV's fuel or life support tankage should not be a big deal compared to major changes with Shuttle: the cost of an upgrade increases with the complexity of the machine, so since CEV will be simple a plain old stretch of its fuel/air tanks ought not to be expensive.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-21 08:57:27

No Tom, not this time, I am right and gaetano is an idiot. Its not a squable, its a lecture.

The CEV is indeed a compromise, a compromise between the engineering, the cost, and the political support. The result is the best design. Again, engineering is not the only concern.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-21 10:28:04

Double the LOI capability doubles safety? What are you talking about? The LOI burn is not the only risk during the mission (obviously!) so adding a redundancy doesn't cut mission risk in half. Infact, LOI is probably the safest maneuver of the whole mission, because if it fails, the vehicle needs little or no adjustment to return safely to Earth. And, if such a burn is required you have plenty of fuel in the CEV-SM to do it. Infact, relying soley on the CEV for both LOI and TEI is an increase in risk!

A "small orbital module" is complex if its designed to survive Lunar orbit for years: you need heavy radiation armor, extra solar arrays to replace radiation-fried ones, lots more stationkeeping fuel & engines than Earth orbit stations. It will be heavy too, which could exceed the payload of the Ares-V, which makes it even more complicated if it must be sent in two launches due to the docking/assembly operation. Because it will be complicated, expensive, and unessesarry Griffin will never pay for it.

Again, if reentry from high speed is safe enough, why bother spending so much money for bigger rockets to slow down prior to reentry?

A rescue mission to Lunar orbit won't need loads of extra fuel for plane change, because the rescue vehicle can enter any orbital attitude you want with its LOI burn. Vehicles enroute to the Moon or any body can assume most any orbital plane they want for negligible fuel expenditure. Not that a rescue mission would work since the CEV doesn't have the life support for that length of time and there won't be a LSS.

There is no need for a dedicated cargo varient of the CEV for ISS use, once Shuttle is finished bringing up spare parts and the ATV is flying, the CEV primarily needs to bring up bulky low-mass items (food, experiments, space suits), which it has quite a bit of volume for. Bulk "heavy" stuff like water will be carried up by ATV or Progress.

NOT to build a super-bigOrion with hypergolics

Whatever, you said you wanted a "giant big" Orion, and Orion is powerd by hypergolic fuels, so therefore you are back-tracking on what you originally said. Or else you don't know what you are talking about, which is equally likely.

In either event, there is no need for an Orion paired with a TLI booster, nor a need for an "Ares-II" to carry it. All the Lunar missions for a long time will need and be sent with an LSAM launched by Ares-V, so Ares-I is plenty big as it is. Sending up a mini-EDS stage on a second Ares-I will also increase the complexity of this EDS stage due to the docking systems and more extensive insulation. Having both the mini-EDS and the full-sized EDS for Lunar landing missions increases mission complexity and reduces safety too.

Again you say you want 15-20X the Moon rock payload, why? What do you need a few tonnes of Moon rock for? Will astronauts even be able to collect all that in a week or two most missions will last? No, they will not, unless they indescriminantly shovel random rocks into the thing. ALSO bare in mind this magnifies the amount of acent fuel the LSAM needs, which increases the amount of landing fuel the LSAM needs, which increases the fuel the EDS needs, which finally needs a bigger Ares-V which is not happening. Unless you DO want a "giant big" Orion after all.

You apparently don't know much about what we'll be doing on the Moon, we'll primarily be identifying minerals and performing chemical analysis on Moon rocks. For the former you need a drill, a table-top rock crusher and microscopes. For chemical analysis, mainly small spectrometers, maybe a mass spectrum analyzer. These, except in the case of a really big drill, are not that big nor heavy. Even a scanning electron microscope now days would fit in a large suitcase. These things are all very practical to carry to a Lunar base, and would all fit in one cargo flight easily. And why can't we? The little Mars rovers can identify minerals just fine, how much better can a tonne or so of equipment do? We won't be able to ship every interesting Mars rock back to Earth, then why do we with Moon rocks? The uber-analysis back in the Apollo days is obsolete thanks to modern instruments.

Biology experiments? What for? We don't need to bring crops back to Earth to see how well they grow, only a table-top chemical analysis machine or two to determine the various water/nutrient content. In fact, bringing back plants is the last thing you want to do, since you want to figure out how to recycle plant wastes. And the "animals" we will be most concerne with will be the people, which you can study with hand-held equipment just fine while they study the rocks.

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-21 10:37:23

...why do you think the ESAS plan will be unaffordable...

many peoples think that... the first figure was $104B, now NASA talks of $125B and the (official) evaluation is $230M in next 20 years... too much for only 12 moon missions in 2020-2025 and a few ISS flights!

the total cost may be not high by itself if used for better design and more efficient and resuable vehicles, but is too much for a few missions made with 99% expendable (and very expensive) vehicles!

...maximum payload of the LSAM was largely determined by the payload of the Ares-V...

that's exactly the same thing I've said, but the AresV max payload was not designed by LSAM cargo but by money available for it

...ISS sample return is going to be a bit more signifigant than for Lunar sample return...

probably you don't realize that the Moon is bigger than ISS...

...a dinky Lunar space station that doesn't have a fuel supply nor radiation shielding. Your "LSS" won't be cheap, as it will be quite heavy...

the first module of an LSS don't need to be heavy and will be not expensive, while, for radiation, the problem will remain the same (with or without an LSS) until a good lunar outpost (with radiaton shield) will be ready (in 2030)

...fuel or life support tankage should not be a big deal compared to major changes with Shuttle...

probably... but we are (always) in the order of billion$$$, while, make a bigOrion from scratch may cost less time and money

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-21 11:02:00

...Orion is a compromise...

since all space hardware are very expensive to develop, build and launch, it's clear that NASA can't build the Starship Enterprise with that funds... Orion, Ares, etc. are all "compromises"... I only suggest to make BETTER design "compromises" (while to-day's choices are bad compromises in many points)

...Shuttle...never did what it was supposed to do-make space cheap...

one year ago, influenced by an heavy anti-Shuttle propaganda, my opinion about the Shuttle costs was (only a few weeks) similar to yours: "the Shuttle is too expensive"

but, after my evaluations of CEV launch costs (that, now, many peoples agree) and some info about real Shuttles' launch price (around $600M each, NOT over $1B per launch as said by propaganda) I've completely changed my opinion

clearly, the Shuttle is too old and dangerous (now) also, it's price can't be compared with Soyuz of Shenzhou flights... but it's INCREDIBLY CHEAP if compared with Orion/Ares costs and performances!

take a look at my visual article about the Shuttle and at this comparison table:

________________Shuttle_____Orion

Available now:______yes________no

Cost per launch:____$600M_____$1B+

Crew # to ISS:_______7-8_______3

cargo-payload:______24 mT____0.4 mT

cargo-return:_______20 mT____0.4 mT

cargo-only:_________24 mT____3 mT

robot-arm:__________yes_______no

orbital assembly:______yes______no

airlock:______________yes______no

big modules launch:____yes______no

well... now try to calculate how much crew and cargo Orions (one billion each) launches and/or EELVs you need to have the same cargo and crew of a SINGLE Shuttle launch....

when the Shuttle will be retired and the Orion will be ready, the ONLY "assembly" in space will be the Orion/LSAM docking before a moon mission... in 2020...

.

SpaceNut · 2006-09-21 20:19:51

but, after my evaluations of CEV launch costs (that, now, many peoples agree) and some info about real Shuttles' launch price (around $600M each, NOT over $1B per launch as said by propaganda) I've completely changed my opinion

Sorry but if you only launch a shuttle once in a given year and its budget dollars for its use is 3.5 billion then by your accounting measure we will have 2.9 billion dollars still in the account. We know that's not going to happen.

As for the orion, a complete set ( CEV/CLV- CaLV/ EDS/Lsam) will be at best guess per launch of both rockets just under the 1 billion. I would hope that the re-using of the capsule will drive the cost down but I do not have any faith in this happening.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-22 05:06:20

"Many people" huh? Like who? Jeff Bell? The AltSpace worshipers at the Planetary Society? Self-described "experts" chiming in on small time space news sites? Disgruntled former NASA Shuttle-huggers? The people who doctor then release confidential presentations? Or best of all, the rabidly anti-NASA "news" site NASA Watch? Those kinds of people?

I also think that your dollar figures are confused, I bet that some of them are from NASA's total budget and some of them are from the ESAS budget only. In either event, the amoratized cost over years and years is a great scare tactic, but anyway it doesn't have any context. The question is can ESAS be accomplished affordably, and I think the answer right now is yes.

Expendable vehicles are not some nessesarry evil, that so long as you aren't flying very often then they make perfectly good economic sense. Since we won't be flying to the Moon very often, then using them is the best course of action. Expendable rockets also have the advantage of simplifying the mission thanks to their superior per-flight payload, so that they can lift large vehicles without the need for orbital assembly. On the contrary, due to the difficulty of RLVs and the need for orbital assembly for large craft, they are infact the more expensive option for the momen.

I am also stating that because the LSAM's payload is largely determined by the Ares-V's payload, that resulted in the ~125MT target payload for the rocket. So the LSAM's payload was set and the rocket designed to carry it, it is coincidence that Ares-V is the largest practical and affordable version of the so-called SDV rockets.

The size of the Moon versus the ISS is irrelivent, that for the kinds of science the ISS does results in a great many samples that can't be analyzed easily on orbit. And, since the whole purose of the station are these sorts of experiments, it makes sense that the station will need quite a bit of transport. The Moon on the other hand, geology is not as hard to do on-site, an LV-SEM microscope for rocks is far smaller and less power-hungry than a big abberation-corrected high power TEM microscope for materials research for instance.

And your LSS will be expensive, at least several billion dollars. Each ISS module cost between $1.5-3.0Bn or so, and none of them except the old Russian bits had both power, life support, and engines. Making a module with all three plus a docking port and radiation shield will easily drive up the cost another few billion. Top this off with a ~$500M launch, and you are looking at around $6-7Bn I bet. $8-9Bn with one mission to it for setup too, and perhaps $10Bn if it won't fit on one launch.

"Orion, Ares, etc. are all "compromises"... I only suggest to make BETTER design "compromises" (while to-day's choices are bad compromises in many points)" You still aren't listening, that yes all the designs do have some negative traits in all three major areas, but all three areas have to be sucessful. No plan can be ideal in every way! The best plan is the plan that ballences the engineering, cost, and political support and the present ESAS plan does this as well as can be reasonably hoped for. Again, engineering is not the only concern!

"Orion... Cost per launch:____$1B+"

A stupid lie, Ares-I/Orion won't possibly cost a billion dollars a flight, thats asinine; where did you come up with such a number? Its ridiculous, it doesn't matter who you quote, if someone else said it then they are either just as stupid to buy such a figure or else they are liar. The $1Bn figure if for BOTH Ares-I and Ares-V!

cIclops · 2006-09-22 10:27:57

many peoples think that... the first figure was $104B, now NASA talks of $125B and the (official) evaluation is $230M in next 20 years... too much for only 12 moon missions in 2020-2025 and a few ISS flights!.

The small print of the GAO report says it is $104B + $18B = $122B if it includes the $18 billion in funding for R&T and RLEP projects. Fair enough. The $230B however is measured in inflated (“real year”) dollars and includes the funding needed to service ISS. Maybe the details are elsewhere but it's not clear where this $230B comes from, maybe someone knows?

It's interesting to note in the summary:

Although NASA is continuing to refine its exploration architecture cost estimates, the agency cannot at this time provide a firm estimate of what it will take to implement the architecture. The absence of firm cost estimates is mainly due to the fact that the program is in the early stages of its life cycle.

What a surprise. Can any goverment or commercial organization, including GAO, make firm estimates of their costs out to the year 2025?

cIclops · 2006-09-22 12:53:30

Again you say you want 15-20X the Moon rock payload, why? What do you need a few tonnes of Moon rock for? Will astronauts even be able to collect all that in a week or two most missions will last? No, they will not, unless they indescriminantly shovel random rocks into the thing.

Exactly. Modern instruments require only very small samples for a complete analysis. The National Research Council has just published online a report on The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon, in the summary they state:

To improve the probability of finding new, ejecta-derived diversity, every landed mission that will return to Earth should retrieve at a minimum two special samples: (a) a bulk undisturbed soil sample (200 g minimum) and (b) at least 1 kg of rock fragments 2 to 6 mm in diameter sieved from bulk soil. These samples would be in addition to those collected at specific high-priority sampling targets within the landing site.

Certainly no requirement there for more than 100kg of samples unless one of those black monoliths weighs more :>

cjchandler · 2006-09-22 15:48:53

I'd like to point out, if belatedly, that the Soyuz has been upgraded many many times since the russians first laid down the plans and is the cheapest maned spacecraft plus being on of the most reliable. Upgrades are not evil, if done well they can be very helpful in extending the usefulness of spacecraft over it's lifetime.

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-23 11:58:35

...LOI capability doubles safety...

if a vehicle must perform a LOI, two chances are (clearly) better than one, especially if (as I suggest) it may give a 100% success of the mission (with an orbital station, LSAM refuel and a spare-Orion sent from earth)
I've explained that in my article but you have not read it (or you prefer to ignore the bigOrion's advantages)

..."small orbital module" is complex if its designed to survive Lunar orbit for years: you need heavy radiation armor, extra solar arrays to replace radiation-fried ones, lots more stationkeeping fuel & engines than Earth orbit stations. It will be heavy too, which could exceed the payload of the Ares-V, which makes it even more complicated if it must be sent in two launches due to the docking/assembly operation. Because it will be complicated, expensive...

a very good example of your "ESAS-as-is" propaganda!
we already have a big space station that never had (so far) the problems you list (and tha first LSS will be 1/10th the ISS)
also, why do the lunar station must have an "heavy radiation armor" if (both) Orion and LSAM have not it?
we will have a radiation shelter only around 2030 with a lunar outpost
before 2030 all (Orion, LSAM and LSS) astronauts must do one thing if a solar flare will happen: come back to earth as soon as possible!!!

...why bother spending so much money for bigger rockets to slow down...

to have less G

...no need for a dedicated cargo varient of the CEV for ISS use...

I agree (from months) about that point, but one ATV costs around $200M and an Ariane5 launch another $200M while, in the Orion-AresII combo, TWICE the ATV payload can be sent to the ISS for less than $20M
if NASA will decide to build the bigOrion and the AresII (to launch the bigOrion and a small-EDS for lunar missions) in all ISS missions they must put a ballast under the bigOrion to compensate the small-EDS weight
so, the extra payload is FREE and can be (simply) used with a dumb cargo module moved towards the ISS with Orion's engine

...Orion is powerd by hypergolic fuels...

I perfectly know that, but the small-EDS can work with LOX/LH2 like the AresV 2nd-stage/EDS

...a mini-EDS stage on a second Ares-I will also increase the complexity of this EDS stage due to the docking systems...

no, because the small-EDS will be used only when the Orion must fly alone and its (single!) docking will be (exactly!) the same of the (planned) Orion-LSAM docking

...astronauts even be able to collect all that in a week or two most missions...

only the early missions will be one-two weeks long
in future we will have one+ months missions and a continuous exploration from the lunar outpost
the result will be giant quantities of samles that can't be sent in lunar orbit with dozens LSAMs and to earth in dozens 220 lbs. slices!!!
ONE cargo-return-LSAM + ONE cargo-return-Orion is the BEST solution!

...experiments...

the tasks you claim are absolutely NOT so easy to do on the moon, also, the lunar base (to do analysis, etc.) will be available only (around) 2030
I think that the (TOO SMALL) 220 lbs. cargo-return will be the GIANT BOTTLENECK ot the entire ESAS plan!!!

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-23 12:21:05

...if you only launch a shuttle once in a given year and its budget dollars for its use is 3.5 billion then by your accounting measure we will have 2.9 billion dollars still in the account...

if you add all NASA's bureaucratic, personnel, infrastructures and fixed costs EVERY launch costs billions!
NASA has extimeted the Ares-I "on earth" fixed costs around $800M per year, that means you must add $400M per launch with two Orion missions per year, $200M per launch with four, etc.

...a complete set ( CEV/CLV- CaLV/ EDS/Lsam) will be at best guess per launch of both rockets just under the 1 billion...

ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE !!!
only the "on earth" fixed costs to support two two rockets may be in the range of $2 billion per year, also, you must add the hardware costs (Orion, SRB, EDS, etc.) per mission and the shared R&D costs, that, since they are very high ($7B for the Ares-I, $4B for the Orion, etc.) and the number of moon missions very low (about twelve in 2020-2025) will weigh a lot of billion$ on every launch!!!

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-23 16:07:04

...$230B however is measured in inflated (“real year”) dollars...

all the ESAS hardware, costs, personnel, etc. will be paid with ("inflated") 2010, 2014, 2018, 2020, 2024 real dollars, not with ("virtual") 2006 dollars

Can any goverment or commercial organization, including GAO, make firm estimates of their costs out to the year 2025?

if the $230B figure is only the "inflated" version of the "virtual" ($104B) 2006 figure, then, yes, they can

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-23 16:33:45

...Modern instruments require only very small samples for a complete analysis...

if "modern istruments" can analyze small samples, if that work can be easy accomplished "on the Moon" and if the (little and old technology) Mars rovers have made an "excellent work"... why don't change the "VSE" with a "VME" moon exploration, like I've suggested in my October 16, 2005 article: www.gaetanomarano.it/moonrovers/moonrovers.html
with the VME we can eplore 1000+ times moon surface than VSE at (max) 1/30th of the VSE costs, with ZERO risks and SOONER (from 2010)
unfortunately, two months ago NASA chiefs have DELETED a moon exploration plan, similar to VME, developed at the Ames Research Center...

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-23 16:54:44

...Soyuz has been upgraded many many times...

true, it has been upgraded very much in 40 years and will be much more upgraded in the next years with the "Digital" version (that may add 10+ years to its lifecycle) but only on its internal parts, instruments, etc. and NOT on its dimensions, weighs, volume, service module, rocket, payload, etc.

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-23 20:00:23

.

"...not the full Bible, only a few verses..." - Ed Harris (Gene Kranz) Apollo 13 movie

you can write your posts/replies as long as you want... but, if you keep them shorter, you help me read them and post a reply, thank you

"Many people" huh? Like who?

reading many articles, forums an blogs, the number of critics of the ESAS plan matches the supporters (and not all critics are like the angry guys you quote)

...expendable vehicles...

I agree on expendable rockets (since their hardware prices are not so much if compared with the shared R&D costs) but not about the LSAM since a reusable version has incredible advantages vs. the expendable (but we have already discussed about this point in the reusable-LSAM thread)

...because the LSAM's payload is largely determined by the Ares-V's payload...

that's exactly my point

...size of the Moon versus the ISS is irrelivent...

the difference is too great to be "irrelevant"
yuo may be right for the first mission missions, but, when we will have many missions, longer and more complex, they will need a cargo-return vehicle

...and you are looking at around $6-7Bn...

if we consider the advantages of an LSS (as explained in my article: www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/009_LSS.html ) "your price" sounds reasonable since "your" LSS costs like two moon missions but will fly around the moon 15+ years!
but a real LSS doesn't need to be so big nor cost so much
it don't need any radiation shelter (for the reason explained in my previous reply) or engines (since its reboost will use the Orion engine)
for the early years/missions a small module (with four LIDS, one year life support and a single solar panel) will be sufficient

...but all three areas...

I've listen correct, but I still think that the ESAS plan and hardware can be BETTER also balancing the "three areas" you quote

...Ares-I/Orion won't possibly cost a billion dollars a flight...

when the Ares-I/Orion will fly, its price per launch (hardware + shared R&D costs + shared annual fixed costs) will be so high that my $1B "ridiculous" evaluation will appear "a dream"!

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-25 08:55:20

Vast numbers of robots? We want people to leave the Earth, as soon as is practical, and you want to send armies of robots?

Vast numbers of robots would lead to a vast duplication of hardware too, that there shouldn't be 1000 rovers each with a 1000 chemical analysis rigs, whereas a centralized base has just a few.

But I digress, you continue to wail and shout and flap your arms about the volume of science is all-important; it clearly isn't, the value of the science is what is important. It doesn't matter if you explore 1000 sites and return a tonnes of Moon rocks if all of it is worthless.

And you say that robot cameras are even better than human eyes? Too bad humans have superior color contrast and sterioscopic vision, not to mention that the human subconcious about "things that don't look quite right" isn't engaged well except through personal experience.

Robots also have some other serious problems, like wheels tend to slip in loose dirt (MERs have had a rough time with this), and humans are far, far better climbers. Most importantly though, our dexerity permits a level of science efficiency and effectiveness that robots can't match. For instance, I doubt a robot could operate a large drill to take a core sample from a boulder, or dig through a pile of rocks.

You also underestimate how slow the robots are, that a suited astronaut could have done everything in a week the MERs have done in two years! The robots, unless powerd by nuclear RTGs or something, will also be "dead" for two weeks out of the month or more, depending on longetude. The MER's power supplies (solar) are also so weak that they can't do anything quickly even if the control systems with Earth can.

GCNRevenger · 2006-09-25 09:04:10

reading many articles, forums an blogs

...While being totally unable to name even one that has any sort of credibility or authoity.

but not about the LSAM since a reusable version has incredible advantages vs. the expendable

No it doesn't, not as long as the fuel is all imported from Earth. The LSAM doesn't weigh that much, and tankers required to bring fuel from Earth to reuse the LSAM will cost about as much as the LSAM does, plus must be developed seperatly. Again, reuseability without at least partial native fuel supply is stupid!

that's exactly my point

No dear, that would be because you cherry-picked my quote and ignored the second half of it which changes the context.

when we will have many missions, longer and more complex, they will need a cargo-return vehicle

Why? After "many missions" we'll have a base, and there will be even less need for return cargo since moon rock analysis can be performed there instead of on Earth.

but a real LSS doesn't need to be so big nor cost so much it don't need any radiation shelter (for the reason explained in my previous reply) or engines (since its reboost will use the Orion engine)

Why won't it? It will so be expensive, just like I said. If you intend people to stay on the LSS then they have to have a radiation shelter or else a solar flare will kill them, and since you forgot from the last hundred threads Lunar orbit isn't 100% stable, which means the LSS itself will have to be able to maneuver and correct its orbit without CEV.

when the Ares-I/Orion will fly, its price per launch (hardware + shared R&D costs + shared annual fixed costs) will be so high that my $1B "ridiculous" evaluation will appear "a dream"!

Ah ha! So its okay for you to lump fixed costs of running the Kennedy center for Ares-I/CEV, but you just said that its not okay to do that for Shuttle? What gives? You are just lying now.

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-26 15:05:25

Vast numbers of robots would lead to a vast duplication of hardware too, that there shouldn't be 1000 rovers each with a 1000 chemical analysis rigs, whereas a centralized base has just a few.

from your point of view all past, present and future rovers are only a waste of money, but (clearly) that's not true
again, you exagerate the problems of rovers to try to "kill" them, but (clearly) you lose your time on this point since NASA and other countries plan to launch new rovers on the "moon, mars and beyond"
also, the comparison with human exploration is a nonsense since the rovers can/must be sent on the moon from 2010 to 2020 and (you know) will be no "humans that work better" on the moon in such years
I avoid to post a reply about the efficiency of moonrovers since you (clearly) want to (deliberately) IGNORE or DENY that they don't suffer the mars' radio delay, may have a 3D very high resolution vision able to see with a larger bandwidth (including frequencies invisible to humans) and can STORE all images (to be seen thousands times by thousands scientists on earth, without rush) or the (simple) fact that a single (well made) rover can do a continuous work (driven by a team of operators on earth) 24 hours a day 180+ days a year (about 4000-4500 hours per year) while two manned missions per year (from 2020) can explore only (about) 4 hours* a day x 4 astronauts x 7 days x 2 missions = 224 hours per year, that is 1/20th the time of a SINGLE rover or 1/200th of ten rovers or 1/2000th of one hundred (low cost) rovers!!! (at 1/50th the costs of ESAS and without the risks of manned missions!)

*I calculate 4 hours per day since I suppose the astronauts will work 8 hours per day and use half the time for travel on moon surface or other experiments and activities

.

cjchandler · 2006-09-26 19:43:30

If robots can do a better job of exploring the moon, why do you care about the size of the CEV and it's cargo capacity? Or have changed your mind over the course of writing this? Don't mean to be rude, just wondering.

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-27 00:03:12

If robots can do a better job of exploring the moon, why do you care about the size of the CEV and it's cargo capacity? Or have changed your mind over the course of writing this? Don't mean to be rude, just wondering.

because the only space agency (NASA) that has the money and experience to do (both) rovers and astronauts exloration have already taken its decision and deleted (in july) the moonrovers exploration plan developed at the Ames Research Center, then, its useless to discuss of low cost rovers, their advantages, etc. (while, the Orion is a vehicle that will really fly)
.

SpaceNut · 2006-09-27 07:36:15

These few thread cover what has been discussed thus far but I see no indicationas to cancellation but rather a redirection as to the agency site that will do the work from Glenn to Marshalls, or is there a confusion as to what you mean by moonrover?

LRO - Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

Robotic Lunar Exploration Program (RLEP 2)

The last I saw there was the possibility of adding a ride on to a probe as well as an impactor but have not heard of anything else.

Do you have the cancellation link?

gaetanomarano · 2006-09-27 14:35:49

These few thread cover what has been discussed thus far but I see no indicationas to cancellation but rather a redirection as to the agency site that will do the work from Glenn to Marshalls, or is there a confusion as to what you mean by moonrover?

NASA will send some robotic landers and rovers on the moon to find the best locations for manned missions
but the Ames' plan (like my "VME") was to send MANY low cost ($50-100M each) moonrovers to EXPLORE the moon surface, not only to "find locations" for the "LSAM show" ...and that plan was DELETED in july

Do you have the cancellation link?

I've not a link but I've read (and posted a comment) that news (the first time) on the hobbispace nucleus' blog
.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2006-09-21 07:51:33

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#27 2006-09-21 08:23:46

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#28 2006-09-21 08:53:47

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#29 2006-09-21 08:57:27

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#30 2006-09-21 10:28:04

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#31 2006-09-21 10:37:23

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#32 2006-09-21 11:02:00

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#33 2006-09-21 20:19:51

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#34 2006-09-22 05:06:20

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#35 2006-09-22 10:27:57

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#36 2006-09-22 12:53:30

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#37 2006-09-22 15:48:53

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#38 2006-09-23 11:58:35

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#39 2006-09-23 12:21:05

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#40 2006-09-23 16:07:04

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#41 2006-09-23 16:33:45

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#42 2006-09-23 16:54:44

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#43 2006-09-23 20:00:23

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#44 2006-09-25 08:55:20

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#45 2006-09-25 09:04:10

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#46 2006-09-26 15:05:25

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#47 2006-09-26 19:43:30

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#48 2006-09-27 00:03:12

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#49 2006-09-27 07:36:15

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

#50 2006-09-27 14:35:49

Re: The GIANT mistake of the (too small) Orion's Service Module!

Board footer