OV-106 - 22/4/2008 11:52 PMQuotejml - 22/4/2008 9:56 PMShuttle-C may save some initial development and infrastructure costs, but side mount payload implies a need for an EELV to serve as crew launcher. Why?
jml - 22/4/2008 9:56 PMShuttle-C may save some initial development and infrastructure costs, but side mount payload implies a need for an EELV to serve as crew launcher.
renclod - 23/4/2008 4:20 PMQuoteMarkWhittington - 23/4/2008 9:16 PMQuotepsloss - 23/4/2008 1:08 PMDidn't some "anti-Mars" language make it all the way to the President's pen in the FY 2008 omnibus appropriations bill? If so, that implies there is likely bipartisan "support" for this particular position. On the Mars language, it actually originated with House Democrats. While annoying, it did not rise to the level of being a sufficient reason to veto the bill and cause a government shut down.For the record (my transcript, unofficial of course):April 3, 2008 - HearingHouse - Subcommittee on Space and AeronauticsNASA's Exploration Initiative: Status and Issues1:21:50 into the podcastRepresentative Dana Rohrabacher (R - CA) :I just want to make shure that people [who] read this record ... of this hearing ... that they do not come a way thinking that there is any type [of] consensus that we should be making Mars the driving force for prioritizing the spending that is about it... That would be perverse ! That would be giving up what we can accomplish today for something that is a majestic dream as we march to the future . But that's not the way to have a realistic and a responsible policy for America's space exploration. Let me just for the record say that I'm one hundred percent in favour of that limitation saying that we should not be spending money on things that exclusively are for accomplishing a future manned Mars mission... that we have other things we need to do ...Do we need to fix the Hubble telescope ? The chairman of this subcomitee took the leadership on insuring that we did not let that asset go. That costs us some money. Quite frankly I supported that... Should we be making shure that we have a very robust system for identifying Near Earth Objects that may indeed be a threat to the Earth ? And should we establish a system on how to counteract those threats if we find something headed in our direction ? The answer is yes !Should we be utilizing Space so we can put a greater effort into conserving and utilizing the Earth's resources for the benefit of human kind ? Yes ! All of those things cost money. It would be a horrible deservice to the people of the world - and especially to the taxpayers [in] the United States - for us to start prioritizing our spending based on the ideea of stepping human foot on Mars 30 or 40 years down the road. That would be a horrible misuse of the money when we have other things that we need to do, that can help people right now ... So let me make shure that that's thoroughly on the record.
MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008 9:16 PMQuotepsloss - 23/4/2008 1:08 PMDidn't some "anti-Mars" language make it all the way to the President's pen in the FY 2008 omnibus appropriations bill? If so, that implies there is likely bipartisan "support" for this particular position. On the Mars language, it actually originated with House Democrats. While annoying, it did not rise to the level of being a sufficient reason to veto the bill and cause a government shut down.
psloss - 23/4/2008 1:08 PMDidn't some "anti-Mars" language make it all the way to the President's pen in the FY 2008 omnibus appropriations bill? If so, that implies there is likely bipartisan "support" for this particular position.
MarkWhittington - 23/4/2008 1:44 PMOne other thing on Wingo's piece. He seems to assume that a plan to go back to the Moon can somehow be crafted that will have a broad enough political consensus that opposition to it will be nil or at least minimal. Political sustainability, as a lot of VSE critiques keep saying. This is folly, IMHO. No matter what kind of plan one comes up with, no matter what the justifications, there will be opposition. Barney Frank, whom Wingo quotes as the voice of the people, is a case in point. He would not care if it were proven that VSE contributes to the economic well being of the country. He would oppose it anyway because a pot of money would be spent on it that, in his mind, would better go to social welfare programs. There are just some people who are impervious to reason and, alas, many holds seats in the Congress. So sustaining VSE is going to be a constant effort. And sniping at it is not going to help very much.
ChrisInAStrangeLand - 25/4/2008 4:48 AMQuotegospacex - 23/4/2008 11:21 PMStop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.I agree, the Apollo samples brought back were absolutely drenched in hydrazine and rp1.
gospacex - 23/4/2008 11:21 PMStop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.
kraisee - 26/4/2008 12:19 AMWhile I can certainly see the validity of not spending money on Mars which doesn't have to be spent yet, I am equally glad that there are enough loopholes around current legislation which allow us not to get bogged down in exclusive Lunar-only development.
gospacex - 25/4/2008 11:37 PMQuoteChrisInAStrangeLand - 25/4/2008 4:48 AMQuotegospacex - 23/4/2008 11:21 PMStop for a second and realize that non-hydrogen fuels also exist, and for the Moon it can turn out that it's much easier to produce and use those instead.I agree, the Apollo samples brought back were absolutely drenched in hydrazine and rp1.No they were not.
I am talking about fuels which contain no hydrogen at all. For example, active metals (Al,K,Mg etc). Would you agree that those are abundant on the Moon?
A_M_Swallow - 25/4/2008 9:13 PMQuotekraisee - 26/4/2008 12:19 AMWhile I can certainly see the validity of not spending money on Mars which doesn't have to be spent yet, I am equally glad that there are enough loopholes around current legislation which allow us not to get bogged down in exclusive Lunar-only development.Time to talk about manned trips to the asteroid belt?
kraisee - 25/4/2008 10:10 PMWhat studies have been done regarding making a solid propellant from lunar regolith materials?I can imagine a number of mixtures, but the 'rubberized' bonding agent seems to be the unknown factor. If a suitable bonding agent can be made, I could imagine a company like ATK one day getting a contract to build disposable or reusable SRB's which can have their mixtures processed and poured on the lunar surface.I don't see it being at an industrial scale for quite a long time, but I see it happening on the distant horizon unless a really good nuclear option comes in and just blanket-replaces all in-space propulsion methods outright (go EMC2!).Ross.
wingod - 26/4/2008 5:22 AMMore like a hybrid with an aluminium solid and LOX as the oxidizer. Isp of about 250-300 if memory serves. Bova talks about it in his book welcome to moonbase and references some work done in the 80's on the subject.
wingod - 26/4/2008 5:25 AMI continue to be amazed at long time spacers who do not understand that ISRU is far closer than anyone thinks, based upon a lot of work in the mining industry here on the Earth that wins metals out of poorer and poorer quality ores.There are many processes that win metals and oxygen from regolith that can be put on an Atlas or Delta vehicle and sent to the Moon directly. 3600 kg from a Delta IV Heavy is a pretty darn good payload.This is why we must bring in a wider community than is currently the case with aerospace engineers in the return to the Moon.
A_M_Swallow - 26/4/2008 5:31 PMQuotewingod - 26/4/2008 5:25 AMI continue to be amazed at long time spacers who do not understand that ISRU is far closer than anyone thinks, based upon a lot of work in the mining industry here on the Earth that wins metals out of poorer and poorer quality ores.There are many processes that win metals and oxygen from regolith that can be put on an Atlas or Delta vehicle and sent to the Moon directly. 3600 kg from a Delta IV Heavy is a pretty darn good payload.This is why we must bring in a wider community than is currently the case with aerospace engineers in the return to the Moon.Has anyone written and costed a plan for producing lunar ISRU materials within say 5 years?