Author Topic: Will we ever get to the moon again?  (Read 27531 times)

Offline avollhar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 26
Will we ever get to the moon again?
« on: 10/19/2010 08:08 pm »
I had the privilege to attend today a lecture of Charles Duke (Apollo 16 LM pilot). It was great to see such passion when he told his story, although much of it was of course already known..

But a small side remark made me think:
'It took about 8 1/2 years from first man in space to the first man on the moon.. today we would not be even able to complete the papers in this time.'
(Forgive me Charles Duke, if your words may have been different, but the content is correct.)

I have participated in feasibility studies with ESA and have many friends working for ESA/ESTEC and they actually had confirmed this for years: 1 kg of payload to orbit generates 10 kg of paper.. I would be surprised, if NASA did any better.

I consider engineers and scientists to be the true heros of mankind pushing the final frontier.. throw a problem at them and they will eventually solve it. I fear the real show stoppers here are bureaucrats and politicians which lead them. It is very frustrating to witness their actions as a spectator, it must be terrible to live with the consequences as an involved party.

I fear that we will (in the near and mid-term future) not be able to make any further steps beyond LEO.. too shortsighted decision-takers in the wrong positions. I honestly hope I am wrong.. Charles Duke may have seen it 35 years ago, when he left NASA: he was participating in the early phases of the shuttle program but left, because 'the way things were handled changed since Apollo'.

My slim and only hope are people like Elon Musk which try to break up old structures.. he certainly is far away from doing it Apollo-style, but if I were US citizen, this would be an interesting place to work at.


Good luck to all of us!
 

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #1 on: 10/19/2010 08:55 pm »
#1 Government bureaucracy is causing the major delay.

#2 There is no Soviet Union

#3 If we really needed to get to the moon and money was no object, humanity could do an Apollo 8 redux within two years and probably land within four.

#4 There needs to be a mission, not just a planting the flag exercise.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #2 on: 10/19/2010 09:34 pm »
Bureaucracy has nothing to do with it. Your second point is more accurate; we haven't gone back because there hasn't been sufficient political motivation.

We went to the Moon because in 1961 JFK had LBJ call up WvB and ask what could we do in space in the near future that would be spectacular. Von Braun replied that we definitely reach the Moon by 1970. This was, of course, a complete bluff (but it worked!). If he had instead said "build a giant circular space station", there's a reasonable chance it would have happened. The point is, Apollo wasn't about going to the Moon per se, it was about doing something spectacular that made the US look good.

The original motivation for Constellation was a bit different. After the Columbia disaster, a lot of people were asking whether spaceflight was worth the risk. Since the human spaceflight industry is so developed in US that it's hard to cancel, the thought was to redirect HSF to more important (and spectacular) things. Initially, this was attached to some extra funding. But, as pain from Columbia began to dull, so did the political support and funding. So, Constellation was left with a program designed for a budget it no longer had.

Frankly, if we had a different president (or the same in a different frame of mind), this could have been solved sooner, by adopting something like the Senate Bill a year ago. Instead, we've had two years adrift and not much to show for it (except a few trades studies showing how implausible a NEO mission is). The winner of the 2012 presidential election will decide whether or not we reach the Moon by 2020. One can only hope that he or she will want to leave a more positive mark on NASA's history than Obama has done so far...

Offline Blackout

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #3 on: 10/19/2010 11:19 pm »
Apollo could never have been anything but a temporary, politically motivated program.

It just was not sustainable.  We will return to the moon and go beyond when we have a sustainable way of living and working in space.  We are potentially seeing the very first steps now with the development of Commercial manned spaceflight.  It will take a long time for commercial to start sending people beyond LEO, but you can be sure that when/where it does will be effectively permanent because someone will have found a profit to be made doing it.

Government 'Flags and Footprints' are still valuable from a scientific and inspirational outlook.  But we must accept that there is going to be a significant lag between a visit or two, and going to stay.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #4 on: 10/19/2010 11:45 pm »
one major point aobut the Constellation program was that the lunar program was extremely ambitious, and it looked like it was aiming for a polar permanent outpost on the moon.  Now that Constellation is gone, perhaps we can take baby steps and aim for an easier equatorial short stay flights, then press the envelop from there.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #5 on: 10/19/2010 11:51 pm »
"Will we ever get to the moon again?"

WE ? You have been to the moon ? Or not ?

What exactly do you mean by "we" ?
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #6 on: 10/20/2010 12:07 am »
"Will we ever get to the moon again?"

WE ? You have been to the moon ? Or not ?

What exactly do you mean by "we" ?


Don't be an annoying nitpicker just for the sake of it. It is perfectly clear what he means.

Offline grakenverb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • New York
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #7 on: 10/20/2010 12:27 am »
Apollo could never have been anything but a temporary, politically motivated program.

It just was not sustainable.  We will return to the moon and go beyond when we have a sustainable way of living and working in space.  We are potentially seeing the very first steps now with the development of Commercial manned spaceflight.  It will take a long time for commercial to start sending people beyond LEO, but you can be sure that when/where it does will be effectively permanent because someone will have found a profit to be made doing it.

Government 'Flags and Footprints' are still valuable from a scientific and inspirational outlook.  But we must accept that there is going to be a significant lag between a visit or two, and going to stay.

It all depends on your perspective.  Sustainable?  Had the Apollo program continued, do you think LESS money would have been spent than has been spent on the Shuttle and the ISS?  Perhaps if the US had improved upon the Saturn V, we would be much further along now.  How many billions have been spent on paper rockets?  The last 30 years have been wasted, IMHO.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #8 on: 10/20/2010 12:32 am »
Apollo could never have been anything but a temporary, politically motivated program.

It just was not sustainable.  We will return to the moon and go beyond when we have a sustainable way of living and working in space.  We are potentially seeing the very first steps now with the development of Commercial manned spaceflight.  It will take a long time for commercial to start sending people beyond LEO, but you can be sure that when/where it does will be effectively permanent because someone will have found a profit to be made doing it.

Government 'Flags and Footprints' are still valuable from a scientific and inspirational outlook.  But we must accept that there is going to be a significant lag between a visit or two, and going to stay.

It all depends on your perspective.  Sustainable?  Had the Apollo program continued, do you think LESS money would have been spent than has been spent on the Shuttle and the ISS?  Perhaps if the US had improved upon the Saturn V, we would be much further along now.  How many billions have been spent on paper rockets?  The last 30 years have been wasted, IMHO.

You miss his point. Apollo COULD NOT continue - because it was unsustainable. Your argument is basically: "If Apollo was sustainable..." - Which is a non-starter. It was unsustainable then, so what it could have produced now is just wishful thinking.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #9 on: 10/20/2010 12:49 am »
"Unsustainable" is a subjective term and people use it around here like it is a law of physics. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #10 on: 10/20/2010 01:08 am »
In answer to the OP.  Yes.  But beauracrats do tend to be nitpickers and add a lot of paper.  And pols tend not to be productive or reflective or cooperative.  And "sustainability" is an emotional term which means whatever the poster wants it to mean. And, stop me if you heard this before, but Constellation is a Monolith I'd Like to Forget.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #11 on: 10/20/2010 01:10 am »
Bureaucracy has nothing to do with it. <snip>
Yes it does.  DIRECT has been officially handed off and if they implemented DIRECT two years ago (I know I know, DIRECT violates laws of physics) we would be well on our way with minimal gap.  Now we will have more studies of DIRECT (HEFT 1 and 2) ect to "validate" something designed by NASA in 1992 and again over the last few years.

You can kid yourself but NOTHING moves quickly in the Federal system.

Period.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline scotty125

  • Museum Docent/Leicester City Fan
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 216
  • Portland, Oregon
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #12 on: 10/20/2010 02:29 am »
"Unsustainable" is a subjective term and people use it around here like it is a law of physics. 
I have to agree, and I'm always left scratching my head a bit when I hear how "unsustainable" Apollo was.  It seems to me that after all the infrastructure (test facilities, LC-39, Michoud, etc.) and R&D had been completed, you were really just down to building the vehicles.  What would it have cost to build and fly 2-3 sets of J-mission hardware per year?  I'd take 2 lunar missions per annum over the 6 shuttle flights to LEO that we got annualy in the early 80's.  And don't knock "flags and footprints" as I'm thinking you'll have to do a series of short duration missions, maybe quite a few, before you can even consider a continued presence similar to ISS...
"He who will not, when he may, when he should, he shall have nay."
TV Commercial - Gulf Oil during Apollo Landings

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #13 on: 10/20/2010 03:09 am »
"Unsustainable" is a subjective term and people use it around here like it is a law of physics. 
I have to agree, and I'm always left scratching my head a bit when I hear how "unsustainable" Apollo was.  It seems to me that after all the infrastructure (test facilities, LC-39, Michoud, etc.) and R&D had been completed, you were really just down to building the vehicles.  What would it have cost to build and fly 2-3 sets of J-mission hardware per year?

A lot. Just examine the STS operations with the same argument: Once the orbiters were built, infrastructure (LC-39, VAB, Michoud, etc.) and R&D had been completed, how much would it really cost to fly the shuttle?  :) More than everyone thought, due to fixed costs. (as debated hotly on this forum recently)

And if you think STS fixed costs are expensive, I'm betting that Apollo fixed costs were *significantly* larger. (inflation adjusted)

Otherwise, yes, the definition of "unsustainable" is probably not universally agreed upon in this context.
« Last Edit: 10/20/2010 03:10 am by Lars_J »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #14 on: 10/20/2010 03:20 am »
"Unsustainable" is a subjective term and people use it around here like it is a law of physics. 
I have to agree, and I'm always left scratching my head a bit when I hear how "unsustainable" Apollo was.  It seems to me that after all the infrastructure (test facilities, LC-39, Michoud, etc.) and R&D had been completed, you were really just down to building the vehicles.  What would it have cost to build and fly 2-3 sets of J-mission hardware per year?  I'd take 2 lunar missions per annum over the 6 shuttle flights to LEO that we got annualy in the early 80's.  And don't knock "flags and footprints" as I'm thinking you'll have to do a series of short duration missions, maybe quite a few, before you can even consider a continued presence similar to ISS...
In answer to your question not all that much. The entire NASA budget is set to be about 19 billion per year. The amount it would cost to launch a j130 or j246 rocket should cost quite a bit less than STS (about 883 mil per launch currently) because:
Your not paying for STS refurbishing
You don't have to deal with other costs incurred with saftey related to STS and the shuttle's design
Your only paying for two srbs, a tank, and 3-4 expendable engines. It should be noted that the first few flights will use stockpiled engines, so initally the engine cost is not in the picture.

Right now, the new budget for SLS is something like 11 billiion per year, a healthy margin for HLV development, with a target IOC of 2016 by which time costs would drop as development transitioned to operation (which is again lower cost than STS by far). However, DIRECT had data to support the notion that the J 130 could be built in far less time (2014) for far less money (about 7-8 billion total). The upper stage program, if done SIMPLY instead of the usual "nasa way" should cost very little since rl 10 already exists and has a proven flight record. The rest is simply building the JUS.

In other words, if the program were executed correctly it should cost a very reasonable amount to develop and an extremely cost effective amount to operate, and could probably be developed for less than what was appropriated. If you want to see all the data and the numbers check the DIRECT threads. I would also suggest talking to Mr. Chuck about where to find the data tables.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #15 on: 10/20/2010 03:26 am »
"Unsustainable" is a subjective term and people use it around here like it is a law of physics. 
I have to agree, and I'm always left scratching my head a bit when I hear how "unsustainable" Apollo was.  It seems to me that after all the infrastructure (test facilities, LC-39, Michoud, etc.) and R&D had been completed, you were really just down to building the vehicles.  What would it have cost to build and fly 2-3 sets of J-mission hardware per year?

A lot. Just examine the STS operations with the same argument: Once the orbiters were built, infrastructure (LC-39, VAB, Michoud, etc.) and R&D had been completed, how much would it really cost to fly the shuttle?  :) More than everyone thought, due to fixed costs. (as debated hotly on this forum recently)

And if you think STS fixed costs are expensive, I'm betting that Apollo fixed costs were *significantly* larger. (inflation adjusted)

Otherwise, yes, the definition of "unsustainable" is probably not universally agreed upon in this context.

Quote
......And if you think STS fixed costs are expensive........

This is not a true comparison to the SLS program. This is a very common mistake that I have seen many times in arguments against Jupiter or DIRECT, and that mistake is to assume that the program will cost more or the same as shuttle fixed costs

Again the key problem here is that the reason STS cost so much is because shuttle has to be refurbished, and extensive money and work goes into the program simply to reset and maintain the vehicle. Add to that all the other extra costs incurred by shuttle's design and by all the extra safety measures that must be taken because of that design and you have very high fixed costs. SLS/DIRECT will not have this issue for 1 simple reason: There is no gigantic, compelx delta wing space plane that has to be maintained, taken care of, and have extra precautions to keep flying

In short, as I said above DIRECT/SLS costs will be far less on a fixed cost/per launch cost basis than STS because your paying for less work. Its that simple. Its also true that the new program could probably be effectively executed with 3-4 billion dollars less per year for HLV development than what has been appropriated.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #16 on: 10/20/2010 03:29 am »
FinalFrontier, I was comparing Apollo vs STS costs. SLS was not mentioned.

I have lots of opinions about your SLS projections, but I don't want to go off-topic.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #17 on: 10/20/2010 03:31 am »
FinalFrontier, I was comparing Apollo vs STS costs. SLS was not mentioned.

I have lots of opinions about your SLS projections, but I don't want to go off-topic.

Ok my apologies. Yes, I would say that compared to STS Apollo was waaay too expensive. But STS isn't exactly cheap ethier.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Blackout

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #18 on: 10/20/2010 03:33 am »
In answer to your question not all that much. The entire NASA budget is set to be about 19 billion per year. The amount it would cost to launch a j130 or j246 rocket should cost quite a bit less than STS (about 883 mil per launch currently) because:
Your not paying for STS refurbishing
You don't have to deal with other costs incurred with saftey related to STS and the shuttle's design
Your only paying for two srbs, a tank, and 3-4 expendable engines. It should be noted that the first few flights will use stockpiled engines, so initally the engine cost is not in the picture.

The Shuttle referb cost will be gone, yes.  But in its place we have the cost of an Orion which at the planned flight rates will cost about as much as a whole shuttle mission itself.  Roughly $800 million.  Now throw in the cost of the upper stage and clearly we can see that a single SLS flight will be at least as much as a Shuttle flight.  Possibly even more.


Let me clear up how I used the term sustainable.  I meant it in two ways.  In regards to commercial I think it is obvious, if the companies are making enough money to stay afloat than what they are doing is sustainable.

In regards to NASA HSF, it is at what cost a program is politically acceptable and gives us a decent ROI.  There is some subjectivity in the ROI part but the first part is pretty clear as NASA's budget over the last 40 years has shown. 

I say Apollo was never sustainable because it cost a huge sum of money and other than beating the Russians, there was little left it could really contribute in comparison to its cost.  Sending two men to the surface of the moon for a few days to collect rocks once or twice a year just isn't worth the money.  There is hardly anyway that could be justified as a needed or worthy expense of the nations wealth. 

Shuttle was sustainable because it fit within the politically acceptable budget.  We did learn a lot about space economics with that program and what I believe it will really be remembered for is the construction of ISS.  An investment that will pay us back much more than Apollo.  That sounds odd to most I'm sure because the science ROI is pretty small.  But the ISS has given us a new political paradigm in space and made us a permanent presence there for a sustainable (politically acceptable) price.  More importantly it will be the starting point for real commercial manned space flight thanks to government programs like CCDev.  Without which the money wouldn't exist to develop things like Dragon or CST-100.  I'm drifting off topic now so I'll stop.

Offline avollhar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #19 on: 10/20/2010 03:59 am »
Good to see the discussion going on.. but I think people are missing a point: why is space so expensive?

I blame it on the paperwork, required by bureaucrats during R&D and Ops. Example: Charlie Duke mentioned the ALSEP package being worth 10 mill USD (he broke the handle..). Even when taking into account 1960 Dollars, I don't believe this could be done for a comparable amount of money today. Scientific payloads which fit in your hand cost around 5 mill USD, when brought to flight-status.

And that's why I am not aiming for a job in space companies.. too many frustrating stories from friends. The Can-Do attitude in the Apollo days must have been marvelous.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #20 on: 10/20/2010 04:13 am »
If space is your passion, pursue it. The "can-do" attitude you miss is alive and well (in "newspace" companies and many NASA elements) - You just have to know where to find it. Or help create it.

We just need to get away from the Apollo mindset, and do things differently. Apollo worked due to a unique set of circumstances that are unlikely to return - so we have to tackle the problems in different ways.
« Last Edit: 10/20/2010 04:38 am by Lars_J »

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #21 on: 10/20/2010 04:21 am »
 
Chris Kraft, among others, has stated that he didnt think we would return to the moon ( or go beyond ) until it became a lot easier to do  ( I think he meant with really advanced engines, which I dont see right now ).

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #22 on: 10/20/2010 04:40 am »
...  Sustainable?  Had the Apollo program continued, do you think LESS money would have been spent than has been spent on the Shuttle and the ISS?  Perhaps if the US had improved upon the Saturn V, we would be much further along now....

Mike Griffin a few years ago put the cost of an Apollo mission at $720 million in 1973 terms.  People may remember the piece:  by a sleight of hand involving inflation figures, he claimed that NASA could have afforded two lunar missions per year for what it spent on the Shuttle.  [I've tried to find the whole analysis of Griffin's piece that Jorge posted on this site, but I just can't locate it.]

To avoid reliance on inflation figures, lets look at what was budgeted for the Shuttle and assume that there were no Shuttle and the equivalent amount of money was used to continue Apollo.  As of about 1974, the Shuttle's development costs were budgeted at about  $6 billion.  That works out to roughly a billion early-1970s dollars  per year available over the course of the 1970s.  At $720M per flight, that gets us maybe one Apollo mission per year.  At just one flight per year, however, per mission costs are probably higher.  Maybe, then, on a budget equivalent to the Shuttle's NASA could have afforded one Apollo mission per year.  That's not much of a lunar program, and there's little money for improving the technology.

Furthermore, such a program probably would have killed at least one crew.  With the urgency of the moon race long gone, that could easily have killed Apollo.

Thus, methinks that Apollo as such was not truly economically sustainable, nor was it politically sustainable.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #23 on: 10/20/2010 05:15 am »
Good to see the discussion going on.. but I think people are missing a point: why is space so expensive?

For one thing, you are working in an extremely unique environment.  High thermal environment, tight margins, and a huge acceleration just to get to LEO.  The physics are pretty extreme, and cannot be changed. 
Plus once in orbit the environment is pretty strange compared to on the ground.  Consider that for thousands of years of technological and eventually scientific discovery, we have had roughly the same atmosphere and the same gravitational constant. Now we have only had about a few decades of space travel experience.

Space is expensive because the knowledge envelop is so small in comparison to what we know of Earthly transport. Also, the possibility of a LV blowing up or a satellite turning into scrap that threatens others does not help.

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #24 on: 10/20/2010 06:45 am »
But in its place we have the cost of an Orion which at the planned flight rates will cost about as much as a whole shuttle mission itself.  Roughly $800 million.

The "planned flight rates" in this case are four flights in ten years.

At four per year (two ISS, two lunar), Orion is about $200M per unit all-in.  Sustaining costs are about $200M/year in the HEFT study, or maybe $300M/year for the crewed-ascent version.  That says to me that the incremental cost of an Orion is about $125-150M a pop.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #25 on: 10/20/2010 06:58 am »
That says to me that the incremental cost of an Orion is about $125-150M a pop.

Oh how I would wish that to become true. I don't think it will be anywhere close...  If an efficient organization was building it with minimal costs in mind, and with minimal interference, perhaps. But under the control of MSFC? Not bloody likely. 
« Last Edit: 10/20/2010 07:02 am by Lars_J »

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1692
  • Likes Given: 597
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #26 on: 10/20/2010 07:28 am »
Humanity will eventually land men on the moon again, but I think that China would have to be the driving force. 

China has a strong central government and an awakening cultural desire to announce their rising economic power on the world stage. In contrast, America has a polarized, paralyzed government and a culture built on an unquestioning belief in our continued geopolitical supremacy into the future.

America will continue to act on the premise that we already won the space race until a new superpower emerges with ambitions that we haven't pursued in several decades. We may begin to question if we are still competitive.

Is national pride important? Should we build unprofitable monuments to our way of life as most great civilizations have done in the past? What is the value of undertaking challenges just for the sense of accomplishment?

I think human civilization is quite a way from a state of development in which lunar transportation can be a free-standing profitable enterprise. I struggle to envision how it may ever become profitable.

BEO human spaceflight is about collective bragging rights, and it requires a deep-rooted sense that we have something to prove. It certainly seems that China has something to prove. Does America feel that way? Have we become complacent?

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #27 on: 10/20/2010 07:44 am »
"Will we ever get to the moon again?"

WE ? You have been to the moon ? Or not ?

What exactly do you mean by "we" ?


Don't be an annoying nitpicker just for the sake of it. It is perfectly clear what he means.

Absolutely not. And depending on what is meant by "we" the answer varies wildly.

If "we" means humanity, then yes, and the return to moon is already ongoing. If "we" means you and me, then the answer is no with a very high certainty.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #28 on: 10/20/2010 07:47 am »
Oh how I would wish that to become true. I don't think it will be anywhere close...

Why not?  It's always been estimated as about $200M per flight at a reasonable flight rate.  In fact, that's the number DIRECT was using, which could mean there's substantial margin involved...

The only reason anyone thinks it will be higher is because they skimmed the HEFT study and came away with their $840M number for a crewed-launch Orion used less than once every two years.

Offline nethegauner

  • Awaiting flight assignment since 1975
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #29 on: 10/20/2010 08:41 am »
Apollo could never have been anything but a temporary, politically motivated program.

I very much agree with You. Actually, I regard the shuttle program as mankind's real first step into space (access to LEO on a more or less regular basis, working there, etc.) -- getting to the moon would be the second one, i.e. building a base there.

However, under current circumstances, I do not see mankind returning there anytime soon. I have a feeling, going to a NEO will be that second step following the shuttle/ISS programs.

Well, unless, of course, there is some reason for commercial ventures to go to the moon. If something materializes, then they will act so quick that they gonna beat the laws of physics and put a man back on the moon the day before yesterday ...

;)

Seriously: if any human being is to set foot again on the moon between now and the foreseeable future, I don't think it's gonna be an agency-employed astronaut ...

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #30 on: 10/20/2010 10:59 am »
That says to me that the incremental cost of an Orion is about $125-150M a pop.

Oh how I would wish that to become true. I don't think it will be anywhere close...  If an efficient organization was building it with minimal costs in mind, and with minimal interference, perhaps. But under the control of MSFC? Not bloody likely. 

Don't worry, they won't relocate Orion from JSC to MSFC any time soon.


Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #31 on: 10/20/2010 11:12 am »
I've said this before on a previous thread, but since the same (damn) conversation has come up again...

We don't know how much Apollo would have cost to sustain, because no-one in power made a serious attempt to optimise costs. Rather than optimise an existing programme, NASA were more interested in engineering a new design (STS). Think greener grass. Only it isn't always...

Without a very detailed analysis, you might as well be pulling Apollo continuation cost figures out of your arse. We simply cannot compare them properly.
John

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #32 on: 10/20/2010 12:41 pm »
We don't know how much Apollo would have cost to sustain, because no-one in power made a serious attempt to optimise costs. Rather than optimise an existing programme, NASA were more interested in engineering a new design (STS). Think greener grass. Only it isn't always...

Without a very detailed analysis, you might as well be pulling Apollo continuation cost figures out of your arse. We simply cannot compare them properly.

The point of the quick-and-dirty analysis was to show that continuing Apollo as was was a non-starter.

Since continuing to fly Apollo as it was would not have left much money for improving its technology, flights would have had to stop while the technology was re-developed.  A scenario in which Apollo stood down for a few years and then restarted later in the 1970s is highly unlikely.  Not only was the moon no longer a priority, but people would have been thinking that that the way to get costs down was through the Shuttle.
« Last Edit: 10/20/2010 12:45 pm by Proponent »

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #33 on: 10/20/2010 02:06 pm »
Yes, it does.

Yes, it does.  Repeat as required.  The Heavy Exercise in Foolish Targets is a case in point.

... [we] were really just down to building the vehicles.

Yes, we were.  I've heard it's the dawning of the Age of Aquarius; the more destructive forces of war are alive and well; thanks for asking.  Why?  Without getting too OT, I continue to ask; is democracy still so fragile that its continuation still requires this primitive activity?  I am open to the possibility that the answer to this question is "Yes".  In any case, the word "sustainability" is being misused quite frequently, since astonishing sums of money are always available for the sustenance of virtually any program of sufficient political connectedness.  For example, now we need two jet engines for each and every JSF.

This is not at all to deny the reality of "fixed costs".  That's where the bureacrats come in, enlarging these costs well beyond their necessary extent.  As demonstrated by our entitlement beauracracy, the actual purpose of the beauracracy morphs by many small acts of will into growth of the beauracracy for the sake of growth alone.  This has something to do with size; there are many small government beauracracies which are paragons of efficiency.

As has come up on this forum before, NASA doesn't really even know how many employees it has.

not all that much

Thank you.  And the big IF:

Quote
... if the program were executed correctly ...

And I see the seeds already planted, which have good potential to inhibit the correct execution of the new legislation, without insightful, engaged leadership and rigorous supervision.

Section 204 of the Act represents the camel toe peeking into the tent, seducing the citizen, at least the male ones, with sexy, squishy promises of answering "social science questions" which are not properly addressed by HSF.  For one.  For another, in a subtle granting of expansion to the beauracracy, we won't even begim to review the goals of HSF for two more years.  This is the point of failure in the legislation, I think.  This is approximately the time estimated to be necessary for the [finger-quote]pre-decisional[finger-quote] flaws in some of the current studies to garner political support regardless of their intrinsic validity.  Once garnered, they will probably drain the HSF effort with unnecessary difficulty, and ever retreating promises of accomplishment.

... other than beating the Russians ...

And, other than beating the Japanese, we wasted a lot of the nation's treasure in developing and deploying the bomb.  You make three errors.  First, you confuse the quantity of purposes with the quality of a given purpose.  Second, altho we can learn from the past, as I think we should, we cannot reframe the hypothetical past on any terms and gain any information whatsoever.  Third, you equate the child collecting interesting shells on the seashore, with the child, if you will, collecting rocks on the Moon.  On a spiritual level, this equation can be made, and should be made, even, since HSF at heart is exactly this.  On a practical level, the equivalence cannot be made.  It is the practical level which mostly governs on this forum.

I blame it on the paperwork ...

That is only part of the problem, not the entirety of the problem.

Space is expensive because the knowledge envelope is so small in comparison to what we know of Earthly transport.

That is the best one sentence summary I have read of this problem.

Humanity will eventually land men on the moon again...

Mucho bingo.

If "we" means ...

It is a struggle to accept that you honestly don't know what the word "we" means, especially as its meaning varies in different contexts.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5412
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #34 on: 10/20/2010 02:14 pm »
In my early 20's I thought we would easily be back on the moon in my lifetime.  Now in my late 30's I doubt I will see it until I'm an old man at best.

If we do get humans back on the moon in the next 20 to 30 years it is going to look very different than apollo.  Smaller rockets, more flexible architecture.  Lots of robotics.  ISRU for fuel and air and international partners.

I am not optomistic.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #35 on: 10/20/2010 02:39 pm »
That says to me that the incremental cost of an Orion is about $125-150M a pop.

Oh how I would wish that to become true. I don't think it will be anywhere close...  If an efficient organization was building it with minimal costs in mind, and with minimal interference, perhaps. But under the control of MSFC? Not bloody likely. 

Don't worry, they won't relocate Orion from JSC to MSFC any time soon.

LOL My bad :)

Offline Gene DiGennaro

  • Armchair Astronaut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Baltimore, Md
    • Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #36 on: 10/20/2010 03:19 pm »
I've said this before on a previous thread, but since the same (damn) conversation has come up again...

We don't know how much Apollo would have cost to sustain, because no-one in power made a serious attempt to optimise costs. Rather than optimise an existing programme, NASA were more interested in engineering a new design (STS). Think greener grass. Only it isn't always...

Without a very detailed analysis, you might as well be pulling Apollo continuation cost figures out of your arse. We simply cannot compare them properly.

Precisely. Let's take into account that the Apollo/Saturn system would have evolved in the same fashion that Shuttle or Soyuz/R7. Improvements in information technology would have reduced the Mission Control team. Improvements in materials technology would have made the Saturn lighter, more efficient and perhaps cheaper to build. ( Economy of scale anyone ?) The Apollo cpasule could have evolved to a spacecraft similar to Orion, given changes in avionics and materials. The J series missions show what effect simple improvements had on the Apollo/LEM/Saturn system.

Towards the end of Apollo, they were getting pretty good at pinpointing splashdown. Later Apollos could have splashed down in the ocean just off of KSC just like the SRB's. A ship similar to the SRB recovery ship would have been fine for recovery of capsule and crew. A NASA Seaking could have been dispatched from KSC for pick up if needed. No need for a Navy carrier.

As for the argument of dead crews, two Shuttle orbiters were lost with their crews. Did that stop anything?

Perhaps Apollo was too expensive as it was run in the early 70s, but it never got the chance to evolve.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #37 on: 10/20/2010 03:23 pm »
Oh how I would wish that to become true. I don't think it will be anywhere close...  If an efficient organization was building it with minimal costs in mind, and with minimal interference, perhaps. But under the control of MSFC? Not bloody likely. 

Also, most of Orion development has been transferred to Lockheed-Martin...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/orion-removed-nasa-control-mod-positioning-commercial/
« Last Edit: 10/20/2010 03:28 pm by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #38 on: 10/20/2010 03:37 pm »


I agree it could have been made cheaper, but making it significantly cheaper (and safer) would have required a significant amount of money up front, and that wasn't going to happen.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #39 on: 10/20/2010 03:48 pm »
"Will we ever get to the moon again?"

WE ? You have been to the moon ? Or not ?

What exactly do you mean by "we" ?


Don't be an annoying nitpicker just for the sake of it. It is perfectly clear what he means.

Absolutely not. And depending on what is meant by "we" the answer varies wildly.

If "we" means humanity, then yes, and the return to moon is already ongoing. If "we" means you and me, then the answer is no with a very high certainty.

Gee, you never to told us you actually went to the moon!  :)

Let me try to explain it to you... What part of the question "Will we ever get to the moon again?" is hard to understand? Note the emphasis of *again*. So guess again... Do you think "we" in the original question meant A) humanity or B) "you and me"? ::) 

Offline orbitjunkie

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #40 on: 10/20/2010 03:54 pm »
I agree it could have been made cheaper, but making it significantly cheaper (and safer) would have required a significant amount of money up front, and that wasn't going to happen.

Do any kind of technical reports or analysis - even if not terribly in depth - exist for Apollo evolution towards lower cost and sustainability?

In many ways we are in a similar position now, with those arguing to maintain and evolve what we have winning this time.

I know there were significant safety concerns on Apollo. For some reason I am thinking it was mostly on the LEM itself. I think that in an alternate history, people might have accepted a ramp-down in capability and missions, as opposed to a total scrapping of it, for a while to evolve the systems and make some changes.

Right now the biggest political issues are maintaining jobs in various areas needed by the current system. Would that have also been a big issue in the post-Apollo days? In other words, they wouldn't have been willing to ramp down workforce to optimize costs?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #41 on: 10/20/2010 04:10 pm »
"Will we ever get to the moon again?"

WE ? You have been to the moon ? Or not ?

What exactly do you mean by "we" ?


Don't be an annoying nitpicker just for the sake of it. It is perfectly clear what he means.

Absolutely not. And depending on what is meant by "we" the answer varies wildly.

If "we" means humanity, then yes, and the return to moon is already ongoing. If "we" means you and me, then the answer is no with a very high certainty.


You sound like Bill Clinton trying to defend his use of the word "is". ;)

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #42 on: 10/20/2010 04:26 pm »
I agree it could have been made cheaper, but making it significantly cheaper (and safer) would have required a significant amount of money up front, and that wasn't going to happen.

Do any kind of technical reports or analysis - even if not terribly in depth - exist for Apollo evolution towards lower cost and sustainability?

In many ways we are in a similar position now, with those arguing to maintain and evolve what we have winning this time.

I know there were significant safety concerns on Apollo. For some reason I am thinking it was mostly on the LEM itself. I think that in an alternate history, people might have accepted a ramp-down in capability and missions, as opposed to a total scrapping of it, for a while to evolve the systems and make some changes.

Right now the biggest political issues are maintaining jobs in various areas needed by the current system. Would that have also been a big issue in the post-Apollo days? In other words, they wouldn't have been willing to ramp down workforce to optimize costs?

Any Apollo changes to reduced fixed costs and increase safety would likely have required substantial investments. And with NASA's budget being slashed, it was not likely.
 
You could also apply the same to STS. Imagine a decade or two (or three) from now, people will be reminiscing about the Shuttle program about "why they didn't just cut fixed costs and increase safety instead of cancelling STS".  :) Well we know now... It is easier said than done. And I'm sure the same applied to Apollo.
« Last Edit: 10/20/2010 04:30 pm by Lars_J »

Offline Blackout

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #43 on: 10/20/2010 04:46 pm »
But in its place we have the cost of an Orion which at the planned flight rates will cost about as much as a whole shuttle mission itself.  Roughly $800 million.

The "planned flight rates" in this case are four flights in ten years.

At four per year (two ISS, two lunar), Orion is about $200M per unit all-in.  Sustaining costs are about $200M/year in the HEFT study, or maybe $300M/year for the crewed-ascent version.  That says to me that the incremental cost of an Orion is about $125-150M a pop.

I don't want to side track this thread too much with discussion about Orion cost, but I have one big question for your above assumption.  Why would any Orion be going to the ISS?  Before Orion ever carries people there will be two commercial LEO taxis taking astros there which will undoubtedly cost much less to fly than SLS/Orion.  There will be no reason for Orion to go to the ISS.

I think this actually deserves it's own thread, so I'll go ahead and start one.

Offline avollhar

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 144
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #44 on: 10/20/2010 05:31 pm »

Right now the biggest political issues are maintaining jobs in various areas needed by the current system. Would that have also been a big issue in the post-Apollo days? In other words, they wouldn't have been willing to ramp down workforce to optimize costs?

I think there is a very valid point. The people in charge *do not* want to make space cheaper.. as cheaper means less workforce needed.. which means layoffs.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #45 on: 10/20/2010 05:35 pm »

Right now the biggest political issues are maintaining jobs in various areas needed by the current system. Would that have also been a big issue in the post-Apollo days? In other words, they wouldn't have been willing to ramp down workforce to optimize costs?

I think there is a very valid point. The people in charge *do not* want to make space cheaper.. as cheaper means less workforce needed.. which means layoffs.

It's not valid and it is a ridiculous statement. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline chrisking0997

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
  • NASA Langley
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #46 on: 10/20/2010 05:38 pm »
This thread is giving me a case of facepalmitis.  Arguing the meaning of "we" takes the cake....sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, eh?

bureacracy has killed the can-do spirit in question.  Id venture to say we have too many chiefs and not enough indians (*ducks as someone misinterprets "indians").  Im not a rocket surgeon, so Im sure most people here would disregard my opinion, but as a layman I really cant wrap my mind around why it takes so long to develop a launch system based on a concept that was envisioned 30+ years ago and is a derivative of a system that has been in use for 30 years.  Its not like SLS is being designed from the ground up, but by the time it flies it will seem like it.

We dont lack the ability to get to BEO in 8 years (timeframe given in the OP), and I dont buy that we lack the money.  We're just hamstrung by policies, proceedures and paperwork that goes along with our CYA culture. 


In answer to the OP.  Yes.  But beauracrats do tend to be nitpickers and add a lot of paper.  And pols tend not to be productive or reflective or cooperative.  And "sustainability" is an emotional term which means whatever the poster wants it to mean. And, stop me if you heard this before, but Constellation is a Monolith I'd Like to Forget.


theres a Palin joke in here, somewhere...
Tried to tell you, we did.  Listen, you did not.  Now, screwed we all are.

Offline Warren Platts

Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #47 on: 10/20/2010 05:42 pm »
We could get to the Moon within the decade within the current budget if a decision to do so is made. (Albeit, that depends on good execution, I admit).
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return."--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline marcus79

  • Member
  • Posts: 86
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #48 on: 10/20/2010 07:44 pm »
I would caution against 'the bureaucrats hold up everything' argument. The Soviet/Russian program was state-dominated but seems to have had little of NASA's paperwork focus. Also, I do think that for large-scale projects there is a clear need for central authority to bring it all together in a systems-engineering manner. Large companies also do this (and get criticized for their bureaucratic ways).

The point with NASA is, I read this recently (forgot where), that they seem to want a $30-40 billion program rather than to maximize what they got. In other words the program exists to support the bureaucracy rather than vice versa. Oh, and yes humanity will get back to the Moon.
« Last Edit: 10/20/2010 07:45 pm by marcus79 »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #49 on: 10/20/2010 09:13 pm »
I would caution against 'the bureaucrats hold up everything' argument. The Soviet/Russian program was state-dominated but seems to have had little of NASA's paperwork focus. Also, I do think that for large-scale projects there is a clear need for central authority to bring it all together in a systems-engineering manner. Large companies also do this (and get criticized for their bureaucratic ways).

The thing to remember about the Soviet bureaucracy was that it was under extreme control by fear: Block a plan that the Leader wants and your life would be short and/or incredibly unpleasent.

It so happens that both Stalin and Kruschev both had their own geopolitical reasons for wanting first the rocket artillery program, then the ICBM program and ultimately the space program.  They had enough personal power to ensure that things worked and people like Korolev and Ustinov had access enough to them to make sure that people who were blocking progress were known to the leadership.

When that patronage from the top faded, the program quickly ran onto a sandbank as the N1 program perfectly illustrates.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #50 on: 10/20/2010 09:53 pm »
"Will we ever get to the moon again?"

WE ? You have been to the moon ? Or not ?

What exactly do you mean by "we" ?


Don't be an annoying nitpicker just for the sake of it. It is perfectly clear what he means.

Absolutely not. And depending on what is meant by "we" the answer varies wildly.

If "we" means humanity, then yes, and the return to moon is already ongoing. If "we" means you and me, then the answer is no with a very high certainty.

Gee, you never to told us you actually went to the moon!  :)

Let me try to explain it to you... What part of the question "Will we ever get to the moon again?" is hard to understand? Note the emphasis of *again*. So guess again... Do you think "we" in the original question meant A) humanity or B) "you and me"? ::) 

Note my emphasis on "we".  The "we" part is hard to understand.

I cannot make it out from the original question if it was about A) B) or something else entirely.

Let me expand on why i find the ambiguous question silly : there only ever were 12 people in the world that could say "we have been on the moon" if its taken literally, and inclusive of human beings only. I doubt any of the remaining 9 is a poster on this message board.

Frankly, i'm not that excited about the prospects of sending another dozen or so of any government employees back to the moon, so there would be another small group that can say "we have, too". It only really starts being interesting to me if there is a realistic chance that i could go, or my children.

Apollo, in my opinion, contributed NOTHING to bring this closer to reality. Frankly, i tend to think if the original moon race would not have happened, humankind would have made far more progress in space over last half of the century. Like it did with other forms of transportation.

So, if the original question meant "we" as "we" was interpreted in Apollo, its not even a particularly interesting question.

Now, when you expand the meaning of "we" to be a bit wider, to humanity, this starts to be far more interesting. And if you include our loyal servants in the definition of humanity, as sort of extension, its even more interesting.

Have you noticed that there is a race to land back on the moon, circa 2012 or 2013, after 30+ year gap since the last landing ? I find this interesting and exciting. We stand to potentially gain a lot of knowledge, without breaking the bank. If you ask me, it's quite likely, "we" as in humanity will be back on the moon in just 2 short years. And it looks like "we" are not going to stop just with the landing ..

So once again, depending on what do you mean by "we" the answer varies, a lot.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2995
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1548
  • Likes Given: 1385
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #51 on: 10/20/2010 10:23 pm »
If history shows humans don't ever go to the moon again it is safe to assume a nuclear war happened.

We'll go back.. might not be for another 60 years, but we'll eventually go back.

Orbiter
KSC Engineer, astronomer, rocket photographer.

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #52 on: 10/20/2010 10:45 pm »

Right now the biggest political issues are maintaining jobs in various areas needed by the current system. Would that have also been a big issue in the post-Apollo days? In other words, they wouldn't have been willing to ramp down workforce to optimize costs?

I think there is a very valid point. The people in charge *do not* want to make space cheaper.. as cheaper means less workforce needed.. which means layoffs.

It's not valid and it is a ridiculous statement. 
It is valid and the line of thinking of which you subscribe to is not only in the minority and wrong, the programs that exist with this thinking are about to become extinct. 

Constellation - Extinct
STS - Extinct
Orion - Major Overhaul

These big (delusional) projects of grandeur are done.  We simply cannot do these projects with the funding that will be given to NASA.  Deal with it.  NASA is a jobs program for politicians.  But do not believe me.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/09/more_huntsville_layoffs_loom_a.html


Shelby fought for CxP for jobs.  Never mind that it was economically impossible.  I think that is the hardest thing for government employees to understand.  Washington is no longer going to send you blank checks.

Between CxP and MSL, a lot of people don't think NASA can do it anymore.  Add on the success of Orbital, SpaceX, and Biglow and now the movers and shakers are giving serious consideration to new space companies. 

But what do I know; I'm just a teacher and a fly on the wall giving inputs when asked for.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #53 on: 10/21/2010 02:28 am »
Do  any kind of technical reports or analysis - even if not terribly in depth - exist for Apollo evolution towards lower cost and sustainability?

Attached is a Bellcomm memo about a low-cost version of the S-IVB, which was proposed as the second stage of a low-cost intermediate launch vehicle (ILV) capable of orbiting roughly 100 klb.  The memo briefly mentions using three launches for continuing manned lunar missions.  It seems to me, though, that this ILV would have been too large to be very economical.

Attached is a Boeing study tugs combined with Saturns.  One section deals with trans-lunar trajectories.

Quote
I know there were significant safety concerns on Apollo.
 
I have a copy of a study of lunar escape systems.  Unfortunately, it's 35 MB in size and therefore tough to load here.  I'm pretty sure I got it from NTRS: it's NASA CR-1620, published September 1970, entitled "Lunar Escape Systems (LESS) Feasibility Study," written by J. O. Matzenauer of North American Rockwell.

Quote
Right now the biggest political issues are maintaining jobs in various areas needed by the current system. Would that have also been a  big issue in the post-Apollo days? In other words, they wouldn't have been willing to ramp down workforce to optimize costs?

A big reduction in employment from the Apollo peak circa 1966 actually did take place, and it's hard to see how that could have been avoided.  I think ever since then the job has mostly been not about how many space jobs there are, but who's going to have them.
« Last Edit: 10/21/2010 02:32 am by Proponent »

Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #54 on: 10/21/2010 02:40 am »
I was able to navigate to the direct download link from NASA Technical Reports Server:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=440538&id=1&as=false&or=true&qs=Ntt%3DNASA%2BCR-1620%26Ntk%3Dall%26Ntx%3Dmode%2Bmatchall%26Ns%3DHarvestDate%257c0%26N%3D50%2B269%2B4294967245

At any rate, just search on the term CR-1620 and the catalog card with the link should come up. Reading it now...
--
Don Day

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #55 on: 10/21/2010 02:50 am »

Right now the biggest political issues are maintaining jobs in various areas needed by the current system. Would that have also been a big issue in the post-Apollo days? In other words, they wouldn't have been willing to ramp down workforce to optimize costs?

I think there is a very valid point. The people in charge *do not* want to make space cheaper.. as cheaper means less workforce needed.. which means layoffs.

It's not valid and it is a ridiculous statement. 
It is valid and the line of thinking of which you subscribe to is not only in the minority and wrong, the programs that exist with this thinking are about to become extinct. 

Constellation - Extinct
STS - Extinct
Orion - Major Overhaul

These big (delusional) projects of grandeur are done.  We simply cannot do these projects with the funding that will be given to NASA.  Deal with it.  NASA is a jobs program for politicians.  But do not believe me.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/09/more_huntsville_layoffs_loom_a.html


Shelby fought for CxP for jobs.  Never mind that it was economically impossible.  I think that is the hardest thing for government employees to understand.  Washington is no longer going to send you blank checks.

Between CxP and MSL, a lot of people don't think NASA can do it anymore.  Add on the success of Orbital, SpaceX, and Biglow and now the movers and shakers are giving serious consideration to new space companies. 

But what do I know; I'm just a teacher and a fly on the wall giving inputs when asked for.

VR
RE327

Blanket assanine statements declaring as fact that the people "in charge" do not want cheap spaceflight is an ridiculous statement.

By the fact you are just further trying to reinforce that line of thought in the manner in which you have further proves you are also on the fringe. 

Isn't there some conspiracy website you all could go to instead?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #56 on: 10/21/2010 03:07 am »
...Blanket assanine statements declaring as fact that the people "in charge" do not want cheap spaceflight is an ridiculous statement.
...
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see why those who make money from launch vehicles don't want cheap spaceflight (or, specifically, space launch). That's basic economics:

(as you can see, because we are far into the inelastic part of the curve, a reduction in space launch costs would decrease the yearly revenue of space launch providers)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #57 on: 10/21/2010 03:11 am »
It is the reality.  Plain and simple.  In case you haven't looked at the polls lately, the big government party is about to get its behind handed to it in the election.  Moreover, the big government party could care LESS about NASA.

The President's plan severely limited what NASA wanted to do. 

The incoming congress will not hate NASA but will hold it accountable like never before.  More government funds are going to new companies to see if they can prove what they claim.

We all know politicians should not design rockets, I am sure you and I agree on that.  However, that is exactly what CxP and to a lesser extent, DIRECT, is. 

People who argue for the old way of doing things is fine.  But appropriators are feeling a little bit easier giving companies like Orbital and SpaceX money.  If they continue to move faster and provide capabilities NASA should have had all along; well, the writing is on the wall.

I know I cannot convince you otherwise; I will simply say that the economic environment we all find ourselves in is driving this paradigm shift.  When you have billionaires ponying up money and government funds in addition to that.  You get results faster.  Falcon 1 and 9 developed rather quickly with very little capital.  I could go on and on.

Only time will tell.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #58 on: 10/21/2010 03:32 am »
...Blanket assanine statements declaring as fact that the people "in charge" do not want cheap spaceflight is an ridiculous statement.
...
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see why those who make money from launch vehicles don't want cheap spaceflight (or, specifically, space launch). That's basic economics:

(as you can see, because we are far into the inelastic part of the curve, a reduction in space launch costs would decrease the yearly revenue of space launch providers)

Well then, I guess that would include the likes of ULA, Orbital, SpaceX, etc.  So where do you go now?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #59 on: 10/21/2010 03:38 am »
VR, you are all over the place.  Perhaps you should just stop here. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #60 on: 10/21/2010 03:59 am »
...Blanket assanine statements declaring as fact that the people "in charge" do not want cheap spaceflight is an ridiculous statement.
...
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see why those who make money from launch vehicles don't want cheap spaceflight (or, specifically, space launch). That's basic economics:

(as you can see, because we are far into the inelastic part of the curve, a reduction in space launch costs would decrease the yearly revenue of space launch providers)

Well then, I guess that would include the likes of ULA, Orbital, SpaceX, etc.  So where do you go now?
I agree.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Diagoras

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #61 on: 10/21/2010 11:02 am »
...Blanket assanine statements declaring as fact that the people "in charge" do not want cheap spaceflight is an ridiculous statement.
...
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see why those who make money from launch vehicles don't want cheap spaceflight (or, specifically, space launch). That's basic economics:

(as you can see, because we are far into the inelastic part of the curve, a reduction in space launch costs would decrease the yearly revenue of space launch providers)

Well then, I guess that would include the likes of ULA, Orbital, SpaceX, etc.  So where do you go now?
I agree.

Competition could drive down prices, maybe, despite decreasing revenue?
"It’s the typical binary world of 'NASA is great' or 'cancel the space program,' with no nuance or understanding of the underlying issues and pathologies of the space industrial complex."

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #62 on: 10/21/2010 12:59 pm »

1. Right now the biggest a large political issues are is maintaining jobs in various areas needed by the current system.

2. Would that have also been a big issue in the post-Apollo days?

3. I think there is a very valid point.

4. The people in charge *do not* want to make space cheaper...

1. Fixed that for ya.  Absolute terms have less validity in this discussion.

2. Hypothetical past, but I would say not.  In those days, the purpose of a job was to produce a product or a necessary service.  The idea of "make work" was not the prevailing view then, in my memory.  Today, the commonly held fantasy is that "service" is pretty much the only product of value.  The word "necessary", as I just used it above, is not, well, necessary in the description of those services.  As to production, the statistics do not lie; those jobs are sent offshore as quickly as possible.

3. Yeah, it's "a" point, not "the" point, and should be put into perspective.

4. Maybe so.  I certainly share a bit of this view, regarding intention.  I harp on this, but profit trumps accomplishment.  Look at the chart that Chris provided.  If efficiency is possible, in the Keynsian view, the lowered costs would be passed onto the purchaser.  Most board rooms in the more monopolized and subsidized industries interpret this as less profitability.  They seem to seek higher prices are the proper response to increases in efficiency.  Object to this analysis if you will, but again, the unit cost of launching has definately not followed the historical cost projections at all.  As to the difficulty argument, take the Apollo tour at the Cape, rather than the Shuttle tour.  The difficulty problem has been solved.  The intention problem has not.  Neither has the accountability problem.

There's a Palin joke in here, somewhere.

A cum laude graduate from my hypothetical online class.  Dontcha just love Latin?  Ewwww.  After the bell, "we" will be learning how to cure facepalmitis.

I would caution against 'the bureaucrats ... the program exists to support the bureaucracy

As you can see, by your own words, only to the extent that it is true, the bueauracracy is part of the problem, not part of the solution.  Here, even as a beauracrat, it is always easy to find a party.  As Ben points out, over there in that old Soviet beauracracy, it was always easy for the party to find you.

The "we" part is hard to understand.

"We" see.  Perhaps there's a class at the local community college?

Quote
We stand to potentially gain a lot of knowledge

Who's this "we", kemosabe?  I already know everything.

If history shows humans don't ever go to the moon again it is safe to assume a nuclear war happened.

I don't watch a lot of TV.  Did I miss a nuclear war in the last forty years?  Dang.  I always miss the good shows.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see why those who make money from launch vehicles don't want cheap spaceflight...

Please.  Do not support your opinions with graphical data.  Sometimes a duck is just a duck.  Sometimes not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automaton

It quacks like a duck, but maybe there's no conspiratorial intention.  [Ominously.]  Or is there?  Digest that!

The incoming Congress ... will hold [NASA] accountable like never before. 

I hope this is indeed the case, because this is the game changing "technology" needed.  At the same time, OV is right, you are all over the place with your opinions.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Gene DiGennaro

  • Armchair Astronaut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Baltimore, Md
    • Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #63 on: 10/21/2010 02:14 pm »
Do  any kind of technical reports or analysis - even if not terribly in depth - exist for Apollo evolution towards lower cost and sustainability?

Attached is a Bellcomm memo about a low-cost version of the S-IVB, which was proposed as the second stage of a low-cost intermediate launch vehicle (ILV) capable of orbiting roughly 100 klb.  The memo briefly mentions using three launches for continuing manned lunar missions.  It seems to me, though, that this ILV would have been too large to be very economical.

Attached is a Boeing study tugs combined with Saturns.  One section deals with trans-lunar trajectories.


So obviously people were looking at less expensive and more efficient ways of operating the Apollo/Saturn system. What if these were allowed to come to maturity? My argument still stands. We would not have been flying the same J-mission Apollo for 25+ years. Is the Soyuz of today the same as the Soyuz of 1967? Aside from exterior moldline, no it's not.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #64 on: 10/21/2010 02:33 pm »
...Blanket assanine statements declaring as fact that the people "in charge" do not want cheap spaceflight is an ridiculous statement.
...
You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see why those who make money from launch vehicles don't want cheap spaceflight (or, specifically, space launch). That's basic economics:

(as you can see, because we are far into the inelastic part of the curve, a reduction in space launch costs would decrease the yearly revenue of space launch providers)

Well then, I guess that would include the likes of ULA, Orbital, SpaceX, etc.  So where do you go now?
I agree.

I really do not think it is that simple.  I have no idea where you got that plot but market/revenue, etc is not a law of physics that can be plotted like that and then expect the real world to follow exactly as predicted.

In reality, there are many factors that must be considered.  Arbitrarily defining 1st, 2nd, etc RLVs as the only true way and then implying everyone else, in the hear and now, is somehow actively working against lowering costs to orbit with the simple goal of only lining their own pockets is not really correct either. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #65 on: 10/22/2010 12:57 am »
"Unsustainable" is a subjective term and people use it around here like it is a law of physics. 

Everything Lunar has just become a whole lot easier and more sustainable.  ;D


Today, a year (and a few weeks) after the LCROSS impact, the science results have finally been released; I'll let the press release speak for itself:

Quote
The suite of LCROSS and LRO instruments determined as much as 20 percent of the material kicked up by the LCROSS impact was volatiles, including methane, ammonia, hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/observation.htm

(Posted in Policy, as this strengthens the lunar ISRU hand quite a bit.)


We will have colonies and cities on the Moon. And it will happen sooner rather than later.

Cheers!  :)
« Last Edit: 10/22/2010 12:59 am by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #66 on: 10/22/2010 04:37 am »
So obviously people were looking at less expensive and more efficient ways of operating the Apollo/Saturn system. What if these were allowed to come to maturity? My argument still stands. We would not have been flying the same J-mission Apollo for 25+ years. Is the Soyuz of today the same as the Soyuz of 1967? Aside from exterior moldline, no it's not.

I agree 100% that if Apollo had continued, there would have been technological improvements.  The Apollo improvements in the papers I cited, however, would have been expensive.  I don't think it was in the cards that any significant amount of money was going to be spent on R&D for lunar missions, because the moon had ceased to be politically important.

From another angle, the path NASA actually took might be seen as just what you retrospectively advocate, in that the Shuttle was supposed to drastically reduce the cost of space operations.  Had it delivered half of what was promised in the regard, renewed manned lunar exploration might have been thinkable.

Offline Crusty007

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Will we ever get to the moon again?
« Reply #67 on: 10/24/2010 08:56 pm »
From what I understand from the NASA history books, both the Apollo craft itself, and the 3d stage of the Saturn V, were far heavier than was necessary, because there hadnt been time to optimize their weight. Especially cutting the weight of the 3d stage would probably have doubled net cargo capability. Try doing that with anything flying, or on the books right now. The Apollo heat shield was twice as thick as necessary, adding a massive weight increase in just that tiny module that had to go ALL the way.
Same with the SM engine, it was twice as big as necessary because it was designed for the earlier, direct landing mission profile.

The Apollo progam left MASSIVE room for optimizations, all over the place. From top to bottom. It was designed first and foremost to be safe, not efficient. And safe it was. Apollo 13, Skylab and the Apollo-Soyuz project also proved that it was quite flexible.

Sure we'll go back to the moon. Just not with NASA. NASA exists because it sustains an industry, not to actually put a man on the Moon (or Mars). That's not necessarily NASA's fault, but of those that fund it. Politicians will only fund NASA to go back to the Moon if they think someone's going to beat them. So all we have to do is wait for the Chinese to proclaim their intent, and NASA will get funding again.

In the end, if you want to go back to the moon, you're better off writing to the Chinese government than writing to your own senator, LOL.  ;D

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0