The US Future for Space Travel . . . Discussion

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Look to the Chinese to do this first, perhaps with the aid of Russia. Russia has heavy launch vehicles developed now. We will talk a great deal, but I expect others will actually do it. Making a new model SUV is far more important to us.

They are already graduating more engineers than us, and can do things for less money.

Chinese will have base on the moon in 30 years, we will not.

We have the ability to heavy lift, we have jsut been wrapped in the shuttle. Delta rockers are far beyond anything the chinese have right now.

I did not say China would used it's rockets. I mentioned Russia.

for comparison, payloads to geosynchronous orbit


Delta 4 heavy launch vehicle - about 29,000 lbs

energia - russian- 36,000 lbs


This is how China can do it.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Look to the Chinese to do this first, perhaps with the aid of Russia. Russia has heavy launch vehicles developed now. We will talk a great deal, but I expect others will actually do it. Making a new model SUV is far more important to us.

They are already graduating more engineers than us, and can do things for less money.

Chinese will have base on the moon in 30 years, we will not.

We have the ability to heavy lift, we have jsut been wrapped in the shuttle. Delta rockers are far beyond anything the chinese have right now.

I did not say China would used it's rockets. I mentioned Russia.

for comparison, payloads to geosynchronous orbit


Delta 4 heavy launch vehicle - about 29,000 lbs

energia - russian- 36,000 lbs


This is how China can do it.

Not exactly.

The saturn 5 could lift 100 tons. Energia would fall short of a moonshot.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Look to the Chinese to do this first, perhaps with the aid of Russia. Russia has heavy launch vehicles developed now. We will talk a great deal, but I expect others will actually do it. Making a new model SUV is far more important to us.

They are already graduating more engineers than us, and can do things for less money.

Chinese will have base on the moon in 30 years, we will not.

We have the ability to heavy lift, we have jsut been wrapped in the shuttle. Delta rockers are far beyond anything the chinese have right now.

I did not say China would used it's rockets. I mentioned Russia.

for comparison, payloads to geosynchronous orbit


Delta 4 heavy launch vehicle - about 29,000 lbs

energia - russian- 36,000 lbs


This is how China can do it.

Not exactly.

The saturn 5 could lift 100 tons. Energia would fall short of a moonshot.

The Saturn V would be the most powerful if it existed. Granted we could revive it, but the Russians could also build something like this. Remember this is 1960's technology.

 

[dmcowen674]

1-11-2004 Bush to Announce Moon Base on Wednesday

To make way for the next generation of space exploration, the president will call for the retirement of space shuttle program by the end of this decade, said the officials, speaking on condition of anonymity.

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush wants to make the moon a testing ground and jumping-off point for future missions to Mars and perhaps even to asteroids, administration officials said Sunday.

The architects of Bush's long-range space plan cite several advantages to setting up camp on the moon. Its gravitational field is about one-sixth that of Earth's, meaning it would take less energy ? and money ? to launch spacecraft from there.

Snow said the new space proposals, which include a permanent settlement on the moon and setting a goal of sending Americans to Mars, will be undertaken "within a framework of fiscal responsibility."

Bush's father proposed during his presidency a more muted project, which would have aimed at putting Americans on Mars without mention of a moon base. The cost of that enterprise was projected at $400 billion to $500 billion in 1989 dollars, far too rich for Congress to consider.

 

[CaptnKirk]

What would be wrong with going ahead and finishing one of the original Space Shuttle options as a Heavy ?

Shuttle=C
More info & history

We have a pipeline now to supply external tanks, we have the present assets that are
used by the remainer of the shuttle fleet. We also have some of the assets that were to
have been used in launch operations to support both the Chalenger and the Columbia.

The Challenger was the one vehicle that was specially designed to support the polar orbit
that was needed for Military satelites, but never had the chance to be used as such.
We still have never launched a manned system into a polar orbit, nor have we retrieved
a vehicle from that orbital mechanism - it's quite complicated logistically.
First you loose the 'spin' that was added by earths gravitational field and rotation,
which causes you to have a significant reduction in mass to orbit capability.

But - there were graphite composite solid boosters that were developed only for use
in acheiving a polar orbit - not refurbishable like the steel casings that are routinely used,
They are considerably lighter than the steel ones, which gains back some of the lost
ability to dead lift weight to orbit. Remember - the only purpose of the solid boosters
is to lift the mass of the extermal tank until the velocity is established and the vshicle
has climbed high enough out of the gravity well to continue launch insertion.
Optimal burn for the solid boosters is 90 seconds.

Now with either a conventional Shuttle, or a Shuttle-C derivative, it would be wise
to allow the external tank to be inserted into a parking orbit for future use.
Where do we get the engines ? One original configuration called for the use of one
ot the OMS Pod type engines to be modified to burn Hydrogen and Oxygen and use
that to power the separated tank to parking position - robotically.

Where does the extra fuel come from ? The shuttle presently breaks away the lightning rod
which serves as part of the LOX Feed/GOX Vent mechanism, and this vented and pre-aimed
device pushes the forward end of the External Tank away from the Orbiter, and initiates the
tumble that causes it to break up and disinigrate upon re-entry.
There is in the neighbrhoof of 10,000 to 15,000 gallons of Oxygen left at this time, and
between 20,000 to 30,000 gallons of Hydrogen as well. Enough to reach the parking
orbit, and enough left over for use in generating electrical power and providing water
and a constituent of a breathable air mixture - just add some nitrogen and helium.

A combination of manned Shuttle Launches carrying connection module assemblies,
Shuttle-c's to dead lift equipment and supplies, brings another External Tank into the
arena each launch. We have had 113 Shuttle launches, and having lost Challenger
during the boost phase of the mission, we still could have had 112 External tanks to
pick from as candidates for mating and equiping as an orbital way-station.

The Moon may be a easier launch for mass than the earth one 6th the gravity, but
you've got to get a finished peice of equipment landed there, and assembled before you
can position it for any mining of mineral extraction operation.
Water ? Not there - no pressure of hydration to prevent evaperation and direct outgassing to space.
The trip to the Moon is a week each way - build a close orbit station first - large enough to do
something with, and develop a Moon Lab Base to transport and position on the lunar surface
after it has been assembles in an orbit that is only one day to get to and back from.
Then fly that finished facility to a landing where it can be expanded upon in following missions,

Then and only then will you have sufficient technology to persue the Mars lander concept.
We're talking a 3 year round trip - if nothing goes wrong.
"Open the Pod Bay door, Hal"

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Look to the Chinese to do this first, perhaps with the aid of Russia. Russia has heavy launch vehicles developed now. We will talk a great deal, but I expect others will actually do it. Making a new model SUV is far more important to us.

They are already graduating more engineers than us, and can do things for less money.

Chinese will have base on the moon in 30 years, we will not.

We have the ability to heavy lift, we have jsut been wrapped in the shuttle. Delta rockers are far beyond anything the chinese have right now.

I did not say China would used it's rockets. I mentioned Russia.

for comparison, payloads to geosynchronous orbit


Delta 4 heavy launch vehicle - about 29,000 lbs

energia - russian- 36,000 lbs


This is how China can do it.

Not exactly.

The saturn 5 could lift 100 tons. Energia would fall short of a moonshot.

The Energia can also lift 100 tons, 32 tons to the moon and 28 tons to the mars dunno why the number for geostationary orbit is so low (compared to the other destinations which are clearly further away than 36000km)

Btw as far as I know the space shuttle is also lifting about 100 tons - 70 tons the shuttle, 30 tons payload

 

[amok]

Discussion on the boosters and of the scrapping of the Shuttle altogether has always interested me. I've always wondered why we couldn't leave a shuttle eqivalent in orbit, powered down or in a low-power standby when not in use, and only boost up supplies and personnel as required per mission. We could reduce most launches down to the cost of the Russian launches, while keeping the special capabilities of the shuttle on call. Since it wouldn't have to be capable of atmospheric re-entry, it could even be made quite a bit more elaborate than the existing shuttles, and its added cost would easily be covered by the lower costs of most launches and the greatly decreased maintenance requirements. Some missions could even be performed by crew members aboard the ISS if it were docked there, eliminating the need to boost people up altogether at times. If satellites were designed with upgradeability and modularity in mind, it could even reduce the costs of com/gps network maintenance considerably. On the next scheduled resupply of the ISS, send up a couple of dozen electronics packages and/or replacement parts and have a couple of the ISS crew fly around and install them on the GPS sats. Instead of spending billions replacing them, you send up some extra fuel and the parts on an already scheduled flight and let somebody already up there upgrade the existing ones.

And yes, I know there are logistical problems in all this, and that my post is an oversimplification. However, that doesn't mean those problems can't be addressed. Our current use of space is just extremely inefficient, which bugs the hell out of me . I can't believe that noone has ever sat down and asked "How can we get the most out of the least amount of resources in space?" The Russians launch for nearly 1/10 the amount of money we do, so I know there is some room for improvement.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Bushes Plan for Space Isn't Clanging Any Bells
(From Yahoo ! News)
But it doesn't matter as the US Space Command is about to get their funding.
Don't forget that there be 'Terrorists from Outer Space' - some are big rocks, some are decrepit space debris.

 

[Ultima]

I'd like to see an underground/domed colony on Mars with 50000 people in the next 15 years

 

[MystikMango]

I grew up close to Kennedy Space Center, and as a child we were force fed infromation in the early 80's.

1) The shuttle is nothing more than a dump truck to bring supplies into orbit.
2) With the supplies there, we build a space station.
3) From the station we build and launch vehicles to Mars.

It seemed like a simple plan and workable plan at the time.

 

[charrison]

linkage

New Space Exploration Vision" Distributed to NASA Employees 16 Jan 2004

Pursue Compelling Questions


Exploration of the solar system will be guided by compelling questions of scientific and societal importance.
Consistent with the NASA Vision and Mission, NASA exploration programs will seek profound answers to questions of our origins, whether life exists beyond Earth, and how we could live on other worlds.


Across Multiple Worlds


NASA will make progress across a broad front of destinations.
Consistent with recent discoveries, NASA will focus on likely habitable environments at the planet Mars, the moons of Jupiter, and in other solar systems.
Where advantageous, NASA will also make use of destinations likethe Moon and near-Earth asteroids to test and demonstrate new exploration capabilities.


Employ Human and Robotic Capabilities


NASA will send human and robotic explorers as partners, leveraging the capabilities of each where most useful.
Robotic explorers will visit new worlds first, to obtain scientific data, demonstrate breakthrough technologies, identify space resources, and send tantalizing imagery back to Earth.
Human explorers will follow to conduct in-depth research, direct and upgrade advanced robotic explorers, prepare space resources, and demonstrate new exploration capabilities


For Sustainable Exploration


NASA will pursue breakthrough technologies, investigate planetary resources, and align ongoing programs to develop sustainable, affordable, and flexible solar system exploration strategies.
The vision is not about one-time events and, thus, costs will be reduced to maintain the affordability of the vision


Starting Now


NASA will pursue this vision as our highest priority.
Consistent with the FY 2005 Budget, NASA will immediately begin to realign programs and organization, demonstrate new technical capabilities, and undertake new robotic precursor missions to the Moon and Mars before the end of the decade.

Key Elements of New Space Policy


Space Shuttle
Return the Space Shuttle to flight and plan to retire it by the end of this decade, following the completion of its role in the construction of the International Space Station


International Space Station Complete assembly


Refocus research to exploration factors affecting astronaut health, and
Acquire crew and cargo systems, as necessary, during and after availability of Shuttle.


Crew Exploration Vehicle


Develop a CEV to travel beyond low Earth orbit, the first new U.S. human space flight vehicle since the 1980s.
Undertake first test flight is planned by the end of this decadein order to provide an operational capability to support human exploration missions no later than 2014.


Lunar Exploration


Begin robotic missions to the Moon by 2008, followed by a period of evaluating lunar resources and technologies for exploration.
Begin human expeditions to the Moon in the 2015 2020 timeframe.


Mars Exploration


Conduct robotic exploration of Mars to search for evidence of life, to understand the history of the solar system, and to prepare for future human exploration.
Timing of human missions to Mars will be based on available budgetary resources, experience and knowledge gained from lunar exploration, discoveries by robotic spacecraft at Mars and other solar system locations, and development of required technologies and know-how.


Other Solar System Exploration


Conduct robotic exploration across the solar system for scientific purposes and to support human exploration.
In particular, explore Jupiter's moons, asteroids and other bodies to search for evidence of life, to understand the history of the solar system, and to search for resources;


Exploration Beyond


Conduct advanced telescope searches for Earth-like planets and habitable environments around other stars;


Enabling Capabilities


Develop and demonstrate power generation, propulsion, life support, and other key capabilities required to support more distant, more capable, and/or longer duration human and robotic exploration of Mars and other destinations.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The potential for natural resources on the moon vastly outweighs the problem of the gravity well, in my opinion. And the moon is much more fun than space. Just imagine strolling around. And you could keep fit by lifting heavy weights. There might be lots of frozen water and plenty of room.

There is no frozen water or any kind of water on the moon. This has been proven already by scientist.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html

everyone of us need to realize that our planet is not sustainable with our current population growth. The solar system won't last forever and in order for the human race to continue, we must explore space and maybe move toward space colonization at some point.

im off in my own little sci-fi world here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3264859.stm
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov03/radar.moonpoles.deb.html

Permaforst is not enough to live on or even worth gathering.

 

[charrison]

Linkage

Boeing has some new images up. Some of the stuff looks a bit like the apollo stuff.