Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

[msbae]

Johnny Rico wrote:

---

This just in...

Obama's Space Plan just axed NASA's plan to return to the moon.

Well, so much for the Messiah reaching for the stars.

So who wouldda thunk that 'Dubya' was the "space/science-friendly" President?

I never believe anything that comes out of a politician's mouth. What comes out of his pen is much more important.

Captain Kirk wrote:

---

That article says that it would cost 3 billion per year beyond the current NASA budget.

So, the amount of money the government spent to give to people to get them to throw away perfectly good cars and buy a new car that they don't need and probably can't afford would have funded the project for another year.

Just that one useless program, let alone the trillions spent to dismantle the health care system or to bail out Wall Street.

But a hundred billion or so to go to the moon and on to Mars? Hell no, we can't afford that. What, are you nuts?

I was expecting this as sure as the sun coming up in the morning, but it still makes me angry.

Your Government at work...

[T'Girl]

timelord1010 wrote:

---

I don't understand the Obama bashers. ...

I think the Obama administration is going in the right direction, starting with the cancellation of the F-22 ...

It isn't automatically "bashing" when a citizen comments or disagrees with the president.
Remember, whether they're on the left or the right, all elected officials - including Barack Obama - are nothing but the hired help.

Once you've completely deployed a new fighter, you have to start the long process of replacing it. Design, procurement,deployment take over a decade. if not the F-22 then what? The F-35 is a good multi-role aircraft, and we need it too. But it can't stand nose to nose with fighters from russian, china and europe.

The F-22's stealth skin coating needs to be fixed. And in terms of the money, that what a fourth generation fighter costs

darkwing_duck1 wrote:

---

While back on Earth the US is destroyed by nukes and bio weapons unleashed by terrorists and outlaw nations because we were so busy looking at the stars we could not see the knife headed for our backs...

If only america had still possessed a president who put protecting the nation first.....Like George Bush.

The reason ARES cost more than jupiter/ direct is that it's a multi-configureable system. Crew, cargo or both.

There were times the shuttle went to the ISS for crew transfers carrying only people and light cargo. the majority of the cargo hold was empty.

Jupiter/direct is cheaper because it's just one spacecraft, and if you don't need a cargo hold you're still taking one with you.

[Saquist]

diankra wrote:

---

[


Actually, Endeavour was built with the capacity for a 30 day flight [EDIT: on checking it was actually 16 days]; it was fitted with the connections to let it carry the Extended Duration Orbiter wafer at the back of the payload bay if needed for a long solo mission (Columbia was later refitted so it could also carry the EDO wafer).
Why not do the same to every orbiter and carry the EDO on every mission?

I would never ask such a question. I know the orbiter is nothing more than a flying brick at 100 tons. But my point, my contradictory friend, is that there are options. And more importantly options that can overlap providing an acceptable probability sucess for every mission. Alpha is the key.

Because it adds to the orbiter's weight, and every pound of orbiter is a pound off the payload (more actually, in the case of something that's being brought back like the EDo wafer, as it unbalances the centre of gravity and has to
be ......

Blah bl-blah, blah...
Forgive me I'm balking at this. The payload does not matter.
7 astronauts go up alive 7 should come down alive. It's really quite that simple. REDESIGN the payload....

So carrying the wafer - or maybe a couple to offer 28 days? - could, paradoxically, increase the risk of an accident in the long term. If you take (say) 10% off the payload capacity, then you need 10 launches to do what could have been achieved by nine, which means an extra launch and re-entry, which as we know all too well are the really risky bits of the flight.

Only Launches are risky. (Minus the inherent risk of space travel)
Re-entry really is quite simple. An intact TPS will shield the orbiter. That's one variable to the hundreds of variables that could go wrong at launch. (Please don't quote to me how many tiles there are)

As for leaving a shuttle docked to the station (assuming that's what you meant; there is always a Soyuz docked to the station if not), a) where do you get the spare shuttle? and b) the shuttle can't be powered down in orbit as Soyuz can - and Soyuz had to be extensively modified a number of times to allow this, and then extend its safe life span to 3, 6 and 12 months in turn.

No that is not what I meant. Leaving a shuttle at the station isn't practical. It requires far too reguar maintenance and the longer it's in orbit the more likely micro meteors or debris will colided with it, and drag aswell.

Marc wrote:

---

And where would they have put the extra fuel? You couldn't store in the shuttle it's self and increasing the size of the EFT would then open up another can of worms as everything would have to be designed.

Uh...No I was talking about additional (MMH) and Nitrogen Tetroxide in the rear of the shuttle bay...with modification connections to the OMS PODs. If the design room isn't available through the ME spaces then Design an extended mission payload that can be boosted to the shuttle incase of an unforseen occurence.

Soyuz can only carry 3 people at time.

...you have multiple air locks or mates on ISS (sigh)....

Being flexible was what got the shuttle into the mess in the first place. NASA wanted it to do one thing, the military anouther so they met half way with the end result the shuttle design was compromised

I was not speaking of flexibility of purpose or role.

Really, If NASA is thinking like you guys then it really does need to be shut down, now. It's one thing to not have enough money it's completely another not to have enough imagination.

You guys are full of "I can'ts"....

[diankra]

Saquist wrote:

---

Forgive me I'm balking at this. The payload does not matter.
7 astronauts go up alive 7 should come down alive. It's really quite that simple. REDESIGN the payload....

Only Launches are risky. (Minus the inherent risk of space travel)
Re-entry really is quite simple. An intact TPS will shield the orbiter. That's one variable to the hundreds of variables that could go wrong at launch. (Please don't quote to me how many tiles there are)

[SOME SNIPS: Saqist's comments relate to multiple posts and posters]
You guys are full of "I can'ts"....

The payload does matter: the payload is the whole point of taking the risks of flight in the first placce. If your goal is to ensure that seven astronauts survive, there is a very simple way to achieve that - don't fly.
Everything else is about balancing risk and result, so that the risk is worthwhile.
I won't quote you how any tiles are, but you need to know that, and the risk that results from damage to each one, and a dozen other such things before an assessment of which risks most need guarding against, and how to trade them off, has any validity.

And claiming re-entry is simple really is cloud cuckoo land. It's not. We're just lucky that... no we're not lucky: it's down to the complex risk assessments that you're dismissing that there's only been manned flight that's hit fatal problems during re-entry (in terms of surviving the heat effects).


It's not "I can't"s: it's "This is the problem that has to be dealt with." You don't solve them by ignoring them.

[anti-matter]

The heck with the moon...been there and done that. That money should go into the next generation of engines. Something that can get us to Mars in a day without all those clever orbital slingshot corrections.

Engines, engines, engines!

[Lindley]

46.6 million miles is the average distance between the orbits of Earth and Mars. So that's the best-case distance you need to travel.

Getting that far in 24 hours requires a constant velocity of 1.9 million miles per hour. A back-of-the-envelope calculation puts a zero/zero intercept with constant acceleration and turnover half way there at requiring over 14 thousand gravities of acceleration.

[Alpha_Geek]

Lindley wrote:

---

... over 14 thousand gravities of acceleration.

In the immortal words of Wyle E. Coyote:

"...ouch..."

[hofner]

Alpha_Geek wrote:

---

In the immortal words of Wyle E. Coyote:

"...ouch..."

Here we go again with the "I can'ts".
Extra seat cushioning, extra seat cushioning.

Robert

[SilentP]

hofner wrote:

---

Here we go again with the "I can'ts".
Extra seat cushioning, extra seat cushioning.

Robert

Actually, that is a very legitimate concern. Padding isn't gonna do squat for all the blood in your body being forced into the back half of your body.

[Alpha_Geek]

Perhaps a heavily modified llama-tron....

[USS KG5]

Alpha_Geek wrote:

---

To get into space, the manned space program developed improved heat shields & insulation, mutiplexing control signals, remote medical telemetry , scratch resistant lens coatings, thermoelectric cooling, advanced the fields of metallurgy ^ aviation technology, structural analysis, etc, etc, etc.

As you say, a lot of technology was improved drastically, but regarding my original post nothing like on the level it needs to improve to send us to Mars, let alone make space travel straightforward, and the level of development needed to make space travel casual will take a century.

The V-2 that Von Braun brought us was pretty primitive. We still needed lots of stuff to get skyward.

He did not just bring the V-2, but also all his research, and was decent enough to stick around and lead the team that developed the Saturn V I believe.

The space program was a continuation of Nazi research, scary huh? At least he didn't keep wearing his SS uniform!

[T'Girl]

Saquist wrote:

---

Frankly I'm done with NASA

I don't want to see any more

I don't expect to loose lives

I know the orbiter is nothing more than a flying brick at 100 tons.

Blah bl-blah, blah...

The payload does not matter.

Re-entry really is quite simple.

(sigh)....

Really, If NASA is thinking like you guys then it really does need to be shut down, now.

You guys are full of "I can'ts"....

Your words not mine.

Lindley wrote:

---

46.6 million miles is the average distance between the orbits of Earth and Mars. So that's the best-case distance you need to travel.

Getting that far in 24 hours requires a constant velocity of 1.9 million miles per hour. A back-of-the-envelope calculation puts a zero/zero intercept with constant acceleration and turnover half way there at requiring over 14 thousand gravities of acceleration.

Obama: ".. some people say we can't, I say we can."

...you have multiple air locks or mates on ISS (sigh)....

Okay let's figure this.

The shuttle carries typical seven people.
The soyuz can carries three - one of which has to be a pilot, leaving room for two passagers.
It would take four soyuz to evacuate the shuttle.
The soyuz only carries de-orbit fuel.
The ISS is in a VERY inclined orbit.
The ISS would still require a soyuz as a lifeboat .

Let me guess, non of that matters. Right.

[Saquist]

diankra wrote:

---

The payload does matter: the payload is the whole point of taking the risks of flight in the first placce.

I disagree and always will. The payload is secondary.
I give the largest degree of responsibility to Human Life. I am not Military, the mission doesn't come first for me. That is a difference in ideology.

If your goal is to ensure that seven astronauts survive, there is a very simple way to achieve that - don't fly.

If I ever said "ensure" or "garantee" implying 100%, then my apologies for being imprecise. If you're coming up with the word on your own then your comprehension of my argument is poor, and I am forced to dismiss this statement as exaggerative.

Everything else is about balancing risk and result, so that the risk is worthwhile.

Lowering Risk: I concur.
This means doing all (not some) all that is in our power to lower that risk (within reason)

I won't quote you how any tiles are, but you need to know that, and the risk that results from damage to each one, and a dozen other such things before an assessment of which risks most need guarding against, and how to trade them off, has any validity.

I have been told by individuals HERE at the Johnson Space Center that the shuttle could actually and does actually survive re-entry with multiple tiles missing. These are non critical areas. I have also been told that the tiles are of a different make up from the top to the bottom of the orbiter. The scans make sure the critical tiles along the nose and the belly and wing edges are intact.

And claiming re-entry is simple really is cloud cuckoo land. It's not. We're just lucky that... no we're not lucky: it's down to the complex risk assessments that you're dismissing that there's only been manned flight that's hit fatal problems during re-entry (in terms of surviving the heat effects).

NOW: To my knowledge not even Russia has lost a bird to rentry. I believe in the numbers and they speak for themselves. You may wish to call it "cloud cuckoo land" if you wish but all the metaphors in China are not going to prove your incredulity justified against them. You'll have to do better. (That's just my expectation of evidence)

Every mission has risk assessment for launch and re-entry. There is a break down in that assesment between launch and re-entry. Reasoning that Risk assessment is why is not reasoning at all it's circular reasoning (to a degree). There is a disparaging interval between deaths at launch an re-entry.

Obviously effective demonstration shows us the variables for re-entry are much easier to plan and gaurd from for maintenance and up keep and monitoring than the internal systems wiring, valves, exposure, and overall failures with combustable materials rocket launches.

It's not "I can't"s: it's "This is the problem that has to be dealt with." You don't solve them by ignoring them.

You're right so why are they ignoring them?

[Lindley]

hofner wrote:

---

Here we go again with the "I can'ts".
Extra seat cushioning, extra seat cushioning.

Robert

Well, if we had the ability to generate that much acceleration on a spacecraft of any nontrivial size, then we'd presumably have artificial gravity, so we could make inertial dampeners. Something of that sort would be required to even start thinking about moving around that fast though.

To travel 0.502 AU with a constant acceleration of 1G and turnover half way there would require just under 50 days. Of course, this doesn't account for the orbital speed of Earth or Mars, so it may be a bit less or more once you factor that in.

[Lindley]

Saquist wrote:

---

I disagree and always will. The payload is secondary.
I give the largest degree of responsibility to Human Life. I am not Military, the mission doesn't come first for me. That is a difference in ideology.

If I ever said "ensure" or "garantee" implying 100%, then my apologies for being imprecise. If you're coming up with the word on your own then your comprehension of my argument is poor, and I am forced to dismiss this statement as exaggerative.



Lowering Risk: I concur.
This means doing all (not some) all that is in our power to lower that risk (within reason)

I think there's a misunderstanding here. I think you both agree that the goal is to minimize the risk/reward ratio.

What diankra is saying is that if there's no payload, then there's no reward, so no risk is justified----don't go. In order for there to be anything meaningful to discuss, you have to assume some payload is present.

Sometimes that payload is materials (heavy lift), sometimes it's merely expertise (service missions), but the whole point of taking off is to get *something* up there. If you don't factor the need for that in then there's nothing to discuss.