Also thanks to Dana Rohrabacher. He supports that language and demands that planetary defense (Armageddon !) be considered first.
My best estimate is if we stay the current course and keep the Obama budget cuts (no growth in NASA budget), we could do Moon 2024. Or NEO 2021 and Moon 2026.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/29/2009 06:53 pmBut, since I don't have a PhD, no one on the commission would listen to me! I would end up watching the inevitable: Atlas V launching two Orions to ISS every year, year after year, while NASA begged for lunar mission funding.Ph.D.s are overrated.
But, since I don't have a PhD, no one on the commission would listen to me! I would end up watching the inevitable: Atlas V launching two Orions to ISS every year, year after year, while NASA begged for lunar mission funding.
Quote from: mars.is.wet on 05/29/2009 09:29 pmMy best estimate is if we stay the current course and keep the Obama budget cuts (no growth in NASA budget), we could do Moon 2024. Or NEO 2021 and Moon 2026.And what if a switch was made to DIRECT or EELV or some compromise?
EELV won't be much better b/c the Ares V / Altair costs don't go down.
*this is simply my opinion and is not meant as a flame*
Quote from: mars.is.wet on 05/30/2009 01:17 amEELV won't be much better b/c the Ares V / Altair costs don't go down.I was imagining Atlas Phase 1 or J-130 + commercial upper stage instead of Ares V. No standing army in case of all EELV. No J-2X, no 5 seg boosters, no new upper stage. Simplified single stage hypergolic Altair. No deeply throttleable cryogenic engine, none of the complexities and risks of landing, no lunar dust issues. No fancy composites, just existing technology. Extra factors of safety for lower risk and lower development cost. Make up for increased mass with extra propellant. No suitports, no rovers, no surface hab.
Given your caveats above, yes, if you significantly reduce the requirements (Apollo with anemia?), you can get there sooner.
I haven't run the numbers for those, but would very much like to. Perhaps there is an august group I can support ...
Quote from: mars.is.wet on 05/30/2009 01:17 amEELV won't be much better b/c the Ares V / Altair costs don't go down.I was imagining Atlas Phase 1 or J-130 + commercial upper stage instead of Ares V. No standing army in case of all EELV. No J-2X, no 5 seg boosters, no new upper stage. Simplified single stage hypergolic Altair. No deeply throttleable cryogenic engine, none of the complexities and risks of landing, no lunar dust issues. No fancy composites, just existing technology. Extra factors of safety for lower risk and lower development cost. Make up for increased mass with extra propellant. No suitports, no rovers, no surface hab.Quote*this is simply my opinion and is not meant as a flame*Just interested in your opinion.
It's incrementalism, Apollo with anemia might be a good name if you intended to stop there. But why do that? A NEO mission before 2020 is better than having your space program cancelled in 2020 because you aimed for the moon and couldn't deliver. All the nice bits you had to cut out can be added back later once there is money for it.
BTW, for comparison, the Jupiter 130 is an $8 billion project for a 60-70mT launcher. Congress would have to be crazy not to authorize the Jupiter 246 configuration though, as it would only be a $2-3 billion effort at worst. And then you can get the full up ESAS lunar missions by 2018, and whatever else that you want.
Problem is, it doesn't work that way. Much like the Shuttle program, once you start operating your system the development dollars dry up (if you can call a few billion a year drying up). At that rate, your development is so slow you can't get to the next "increment".
It is the very real reason that Griffin chose the increment he did. Less and he would not have kept congressional funding or WH interest. snipAgain, more incremental strategy would have been a non-starter for President Bush, and likely the Congress. (based on conversations I've had with principals)
Isn't the trick just to have very small increments? That's how it works with software.
Can you say more about this? I had thought the problem was a NASA mindset that was still stuck in the golden age of Apollo. You seem to be saying the politicians are the problem. Why would they be opposed to incrementalism?
Yes, but with software, you can build on what you have with a high degree of re-use.
It is sort of like building an air transport system for a few DC-9s and then incrementally trying to improve the runways, air traffic control software, structures, food services, media services for a 787. It doesn't work without huge upgrade costs.
SEI was an increment too large (it too had sub increments), and VSE was seen as too small (or totally irrelevant) at the time.
The term "Apollo on steroids" was meant as an increment that can be accomplished by Griffin, but seen as short sighted and derogatory by many decision makers.http://www.thespacereview.com/article/502/1
The other thing that I can offer is that politicians think in cycles. What can I accomplish in this budget? What can I accomplish before my next election? What can I accomplish before I run for Senate (or the Whitehouse)?
That is why 20-year and 30-year plans to accomplish something "big" are unpopular, both human lifespans and political terms work against it. Can you think of anything else that we do that has a 20-year vision? Apollo was thought of and done in less than 10. Hydroelectric dams is all I can think of, and we don't build those anymore.
People think of this as "wrong" or "shortsighted" but many of us live our lives the same way. Paycheck to paycheck ... jobs last years not decades ... and houses aren't long-term homes for many of us. It has also allowed us to accomplish some remarkable things.
Quote from: Danny Dot on 05/29/2009 03:44 am Current NASA communication is simply closed."NASA" - that is very generalized, and certainly not the case in ShuttleLand! I've been totally impressed with how SSP deal with dissent, they actually welcome it. Sure, impressing me means nothing, but here's one of what will be many examples on how at least SSP is not suffering from "closed communication":http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2007/08/endeavour-dissent-from-engineer-a-sign-of-post-columbia-changes/
Current NASA communication is simply closed.
To be precise, Ares I is expected to cost $14.4 billion according to the 2007 GAO report- and that was 2 years ago! Ares I is projected to become operational in early 2017 as of the latest info that I hear. Manrating Atlas V or Delta IV will cost no more than $3 billion, including infrastructure. So going with an EELV is already saving you >$11 billion right off the bat. I'd call that an improvement, even though the Altair/Ares V costs don't go down as you pointed out.
Quote from: mmeijeri on 05/30/2009 02:05 amIsn't the trick just to have very small increments? That's how it works with software.Yes, but with software, you can build on what you have with a high degree of re-use.It is sort of like building an air transport system for a few DC-9s and then incrementally trying to improve the runways, air traffic control software, structures, food services, media services for a 787. It doesn't work without huge upgrade costs.
I tried to attach a briefing of the NEO proposal, but it is 26 megs and got rejected. You can find it yourself here....
There is a 150-meter diameter NEO that rotates every 5 minutes!
(not Apollo on steroids, but Apollo on asteroids).