-In summary, "Apollo on Steroids" -Heavy Launch Vehicle based on existing shuttle SRBs and shuttle main boosters -Semi-reusable Crew Exploration Vehicle for crew transfer to orbit and space station -CEV docks with lunar transfer rocket plus lander placed in orbit by HLV -Whole crew of four will go to the surface CEV remains in orbit alone and will return the crew to an airbag touchdown in Nevada.
I'm a big proponent of the basic continued use of existing infrastructure from the shuttle, arranged in different stacks to get the job done. According to NASA, the goal this time is clear cut as not just the exploration, but the EXPLOITATION of the moon. To get public approval, NASA needs visible, tangible results, and stuff like mining, fuel, and tourism will give them a better chance.
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
It's a horrid, wretched, evil, stupid, plan. An awful, awful, awful, awful, awful mess.
This is two steps back after three steps forward. Apollo on steroids indeed. This is Apollo +2 people, that is, flag and footprints. It won't do anything that hasn't been done already and it won't get any farther than what we've already done.
This...plan, is an absolute disgrace. Unfortunately it's precisely what I expected.
I predict three missions and cancellation. Presuming anything even gets off the ground.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Well it would be getting a lot more payload into space without the shuttle's overhead. The CEV capsule may not be the most forward-thinking payload to be boosting to orbit, but the booster sytem looks solid. Pun not intended. What would your plan be, OnToMars?
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd like to know too. This system is cheaper, mostly resueable, and far safer than the shuttle while actually being able to do more.
Though my own conspiracy bug is telling me that all they REALLY need out of this is a CEV. Screw the moon and mars - NASA just want independent spaceflight plus a heavy launch rocket, and at the end of the day they'll probably have it.
Many say the shuttle was outdated before it started flying - one of the main assumptions behind its purpose was that PEOPLE would be instrumental in assembling the space station with zillions of spacewalks, manual truss assemblies, etc. We've since confirmed, and the Russians have been doing since day one, that a space station will be modular, assembled by robotic arms or self-guided docking, and require few EVAs. We know now that all you really need is a heavy rocket to boost stuff up there, and a couple of astronauts on station for the finishing touches. You don't need a shuttle for that.
I've said here before - the shuttle was cool, but it's had its day. Everything we need can be done now by smaller, cheaper, safer rockets. They don't look nearly as cool, but it works. Until someone can figure out a viable SSTO concept, capsules are the way to go.
posted
(It's a good thing the U.S. has so much money and energy to put towards moon buggies, and is not stuck in a perpetual war and facing full-out ecological collapse coupled with no energy.)
OnToMars: even Robert Zubrin had kind of/sort of kind things to say about it! Somewhere! I thought but now totally can't find!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
This is for me is validation that NASA is imaginatively and creatively bankrupt. Their plan is Apollo, with Gemini thrown in for good measure, with a few tweaks. Public apathy killed, along with so many other things, killed Apollo. I don't expect this plan to light the public's enthuasism for another moon shot. In fact, our paper planted this story deep in the front pages. Enough said.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
$104 billion isn't even 5% of the total federal budget. Compare that to Apollo, which took up about a quarter of the budget. Apollo *couldn't* be sustained for long. Also, compare NASA's budget to most other federal programs, and it's pretty insignificant. Part of the plan here is to have a sustainable manned space presence, with designs on going to the moon and beyond.
posted
You cannot fund an ongoing MANNED project with 2 destinations (one of them being a planet we've never sent anyone to before)over a period of 20 + years with $104B.
NASA might know how to do unmanned spaceflight on the cheap, but there are peoples' lives at stake here. They can't fuck around with that.
The only hope is delay and government bloat. You know, here in Charlotte, we had an arena funding issue for a new NBA team. First, when it was pitched, it was going to cost just under $150M. Now, it's almost done and costs have come in at just over $300M.
-------------------- This is just fun...it's not life...keep this in mind and we'll all enjoy it much more
Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
And what exactly is wrong with using a proven set of methods and technologies? Apollo only killed three people, and made it to the Moon and serviced Skylab.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"This is for me is validation that NASA is imaginatively and creatively bankrupt."
So, you don't want them to do anything proven, or anything with scientific merit? You only want to see something that looks outwardly different than what you've seen before?
How about if they paint a mural on the outside of the capsule? Will that fulfill your "imagination" quota?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"And what exactly is wrong with using a proven set of methods and technologies? Apollo only killed three people, and made it to the Moon and serviced Skylab."
Considering the fact that we eventually want to get the average person into space, a lot of focus has been put on safety. With Apollo, they were lucky that was *all* it killed. Apollo 11 only had a 50/50 chance of getting to the moon and back alive, according to a quote from Armstrong.
posted
I bet he just said that to pull girls, though.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not snarking at Apollo by mentioning that, though. 3 < 14, and sure, you could compare them by deaths per hours flown, but then you could also compare by, uh, average mission difficulty, and as mentioned, getting to the Moon and back in one piece was, and remains a tricky proposition.
Also, what the heck? I get "Sorry, we do not permit the following HTML tag or attribute: Parenthesis in HTML tag" when I tried to post this with "and remains" in parentheses, but there were no HTML tags anywhere to be seen.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The world has rightly rebelled against your hideous abuse of brackets in posts.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
