NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Cancelled Ares I and Ares Tests => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2005 05:36 PM

Title: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2005 05:36 PM
Information starting to leak out (leak not being the operative word). Here's a thread that we can update and link up news articles related to the Study.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2005 05:37 PM
NASA to hold press conference on Monday or Tuesday to reveal details of a $100 billion plan to go back to the Moon.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Flightstar on 09/15/2005 06:30 PM
Basically what will come out is more or less what you've see on the AIAA Document on the SDLV/CEV on the SDLV forum pages here. The costings are interesting and the timeline roadmap will be interesting.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2005 06:32 PM
Might be worth linking that section up here then.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/forum-view.asp?fid=21
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/15/2005 06:44 PM
Personally, I think this is going to be a tough one to pull off. With the whole New Orleans thing, I really see people criticizing the VSE... "The governemtn can't plan how to respond to hurricane, but they can plan a Moon mission."
With the rising gas prices, and the $200 billion dollars it'll take to rebuild New Orleans, I don't think the public is ready to accept a return to the Moon.
I know I want to see us go back, and I'm sure there are many more people out there who would like to see the VSE succeed.  I remember when the VSE was first announced it became the laughing stock of late night TV. Maybe the 60 Day report will make people take it more seriously, but I really just can't see that happening.

Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: starhunter on 09/15/2005 07:51 PM

I agree this is probably bad timing for such announcing such a plan. NASA has two sites in the devastated area now (Michoud in New Orleans and Stennis in MS) and they will require over $1 billion to restore. Maybe if the plan can integrate the area workforces more, it will be a stronger sell......??

  

Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/15/2005 08:10 PM
I honastly think it would be wiser to wait another month, maybe by then there will be a more concrete plan on how to begin helping New Orleans. Also, one month form now we'll have China up there. Comm on is it too much to ask for CNN and Fox News to start raising questions about what they are doing up there? The "secret payloads". People will eat that crap up, and want to go there before China does.

The common person doesn't know how advanced China's program is becoming. We're all space fans here and even we don't hear or know much about the Chinese program. I think if the news channels would pay attention to the Chinese mission, and start talking about China's goals (the Moon) then maybe people will become afraid. The whole idea that the public will support a Moon mission becausede and a sense of wonder, is a bunch of crap. You will not get widespread public support unless they feel threatened. Apollo happened because of the Soviet Union Our relations with China are not even close to as hot as they were with the Soviet Union, however, as spaceflight goes, they are our best competition right now. Russia is willing to climb on board anyones program, as long as they are getting what they want. The ESA has there thing going with Russia. Japan has relations with NASA and the ISS program. China is really the only space program that isn't trying to open relations with us.

And on that note, maybe China is smarter than NASA and Russia and the ESA. Look how screwed up the ISS situation has become. Russia builds hardware, now it looks like we won't even launch some of it. For awhile we were using the Soyuz for free. China is probably much better off alone, as international politics will not become involved.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Shuttle Man on 09/15/2005 08:22 PM
I have just seen some of the documents, shall I post them here?
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Avron on 09/15/2005 08:23 PM
Quote
Shuttle Man - 15/9/2005  4:22 PM

I have just seen some of the documents, shall I post them here?

Please...
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: nacnud on 09/15/2005 08:28 PM
YES! please
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2005 09:03 PM
I've mailed him as we can't put anything on here that is deemed part of information export law....we'll sort this out.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Shuttle Man on 09/15/2005 09:10 PM
I've mailed you it and you can see what can go on etc?
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2005 09:25 PM
Ok. Some summary points:

CEV now 2011...not 2014. One year downtime between STS and CEV. (Guess the Russians were right about the reduction of the timeline between STS and CEV...ages ago).

NASA to spend $7 billion a year from 2011...rising year on year to $15 billion by 2018.

Why a load of cash going to the Russians?
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: NASA_Twix_JSC on 09/15/2005 09:28 PM
could be for the engines?
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Flightstar on 09/15/2005 09:29 PM
Four year gap between the retirement of the STS and the CEV and SDLV never was viable.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: nacnud on 09/15/2005 09:34 PM
Anything about a cargo SRB SDV?
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2005 09:37 PM
SDLV will cost between around $8 billion to design and build.

125 mt lifter. That's 15mt more than the Magnum and Longfellows???
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2005 09:40 PM
Two CEVs: (Note, one is an actual CEV).

1) Six seater for manned missions.
2) Cargo (SRB stick).

I don't know if this is right, but sounds like the CEV Single Stick vehicle is the cargo...and the Lockheed Martin design for the Crew:

Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2005 09:44 PM
Although this:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/photos/photo-thumbnails.asp?albumid=4

Ain't a six seater...maybe this is a different design altogether...but there's two types..one for payload and one (which IS the CEV) for crew.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Flightstar on 09/15/2005 09:46 PM
Simple rule to note here. We're not going to mix crew and cargo again.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: James Lowe1 on 09/15/2005 09:51 PM
Griffin is doing fine work.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: nacnud on 09/15/2005 10:00 PM
I though that the LM lifting body could take six, but only on ISS trips.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Stardust9906 on 09/15/2005 10:21 PM
Any word on the second stage for the SRB launcher?  Is it going to use the J2 or some other engine?
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: AndyMc on 09/15/2005 10:24 PM
The Lockheed CEV was touted as being launched on an Atlas derived launcher powered by RD-180's. Is this what the money allocated to Russia is for?

Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: nacnud on 09/15/2005 10:34 PM
Yep the LM CEV can carry six, from the pop sci article (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/1534782.html)

The Lockheed team--consisting of six companies--came up with a CEV in three parts. The titanium crew module holds four to six astronauts and launches separately from the mission module and the propulsion stage.

Then again so much has changed since then the vehicle described there may no longer resemble LM plans.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: nacnud on 09/15/2005 10:36 PM
The money for Russia could be to allow continued use of the Soyuz and Progress.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: simcosmos on 09/15/2005 11:20 PM
Hello,

I'm personally more interested in performance numbers (they can also give another view about other numbers, like needed money, timelines, etc).

Here go my questions just in case any of the answers are out there...

SRB LAUNCHER:
- SRB: are there plans to use a 5 segment SRB in a future expansion of the launch vehicle? Or it is all about just a 4 seg. SRB?
- 2nd  stage: how many tons and which type / how many engines? (last I heard was 1 x SSME)
- LEO payload?


HEAVY LIFTER:
- core: which and how many engines? (last I heard were 5 x SSME?)
- 2nd stage: how many tons and which / how many engines?
- fairing dimensions?
- LEO payload? (last I heard, 125tons, it seems)
- (supposing here the 2 x 5 seg. SRB, right?)


CEV:
Now, I'm really curious about this one: some strong hints given by NASA (others) seemed to point for the existence of two variants of an enlarged (around 5m base diameter) and updated  Apollo type capsule. One variant would be used for manned flights and would have a variable crew number ranging from 3 or 4 up to 6 or even 8 astronauts, depending of the mission… The other variant would be for unmanned cargo flights (no seats, etc)…

Last time I heard about the issue, both variants  would be reusable except for the heatshield and would be based on the same fuselage. They would have a service module and perhaps(?) even a mission module (like the Soyuz) depending again of the mission profile.

Now the question: after a calmer reading, are really there any solid evidences that this Apollo (conical capsule) approach will not be used and that the CEV will be something like a biconic design?

In any case, will the cargo spacecraft and the crew spacecraft share the same fuselage design? I was confused with some comments made in this thread :)

A few notes:

From here:
http://www.space.com/news/050914_nasa_cev_update.html

"NASA has been working intensely since April on an exploration plan that entails building an 18-foot (5.5-meter) blunt body crew capsule"

Note: There is the "blunt" word mixed with "capsule"...

Then, from here:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/09/rollout_plan_fo.html#more

"As to what it will look like: think Apollo - both for what it will feature - and what it will not feature - as well as how things will look- and how they will work. Mars is only a footnote - a distant one at that."

Note: mysterious line, isn't it?

Ho, the wait, ho the pain :)

António

Edits: ho, the typos...
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/15/2005 11:31 PM
I'm a little confused as well. The LM concept that was posted here (in one of Chris' posts, I belive) dates back to the OSP days. When LM was going for the OSP they first started out with the biconic design launched on an Atlas V. They then got rid of this design and moved onto a capsule design. (The capsule wasn't rounded like Soyuz, nor conicle like Apollo, kind of inbetween). Then once the CEV came around we began to see the new lifting body design.

Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/16/2005 01:11 AM
Heavy lifters (Magnum and Longfellow) not launching till 2016 and 2017.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: SRBseparama on 09/16/2005 02:37 AM
So does this mean all the Naysayers about NASA's actual intention to go back to the moon are wrong?
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Space101 on 09/16/2005 03:32 AM
Quote
SRBseparama - 15/9/2005  9:37 PM

So does this mean all the Naysayers about NASA's actual intention to go back to the moon are wrong?

Who knows. The way politics work in the US I don't know. When does this money become money in the bank? Thinking X-33 when 2 billion bucks was in the bank and they still dropped it.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Space101 on 09/16/2005 03:37 AM
Anyway that document can be mailed out to people who want it? I'm getting sick of the (edited for swearing) Incorrect that surround NASA and them saying cool things then doing nothing. Pictures and text would help me.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/16/2005 03:40 AM
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? ;)

And there's no point mailing what I've got out as I know for a fact it's NOT an actual document from the ESAS documents going around the White House. More a case of someone writing up some notes on what they've seen..etc.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: James Lowe1 on 09/16/2005 03:44 AM
Might be worth calling the Russians. They seem to get to know everything before anyone and aren't shy of telling the media.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: gyro2020 on 09/16/2005 03:47 AM
KCowling...see you are online. Do you have anything at NASAWatch or SpaceRef? Eager minds wish to know :)
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: realtime on 09/16/2005 03:50 AM
Stupid question, maybe, but how does this design maneuver upon reentry?   Via RCS?

Similar specs as Kliper, but this design is not reusable, is it?  How much will this puppy cost per pop?
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: kraisee on 09/16/2005 05:34 AM
Quote
Stardust9906 - 15/9/2005  6:21 PM

Any word on the second stage for the SRB launcher?  Is it going to use the J2 or some other engine?


About the time Discovery launched I spoke with one engineer over from Marshall who had just been offered the chief engineering position on NASA's design team for that exact stage.   It still wasn't confirmed at that point, but was looking likely enough that NASA was appointing a team to start the real groundwork to start production of such a piece of hardware.   His personal choice was SSME over J2 or RS-68.

He made a very convincing argument that the knowledgebase for SSME is now vast compared with almost any other engine, and a bunch of RSRM guys who were there celebrating the launch also agreed.   The argument is this:

Simply because SSME has always been recovered and can be analysed in finite detail after every flight, they know it inside and out.   They know all its strengths and all its weaknesses, and have vast amounts of data from flown articles to give them a high degree of confidence in the powerplant.

However, he did concede that RS-68 has taught them a LOT about how to manufacture that sort of engine with far less intensive (read expensive) effort than is done with SSME.   He said that SSME would need some modifications anyhow, such as changes to allow it to be air-lit once the RSRM burns out and is discarded.   So if it's going to be re-developed, there is a real chance that a simplified, expendable variant of SSME could be made instead - an "SSME-S", using all the lessons learned from RS-68's development and all the lessons from SSME's flight history.

Ultimately the jury is still out on that decision, but the performance figures speak for themselves:



-Ross
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: kraisee on 09/16/2005 05:57 AM
Quote
Chris Bergin - 15/9/2005  5:25 PM

Ok. Some summary points:

CEV now 2011...not 2014. One year downtime between STS and CEV. (Guess the Russians were right about the reduction of the timeline between STS and CEV...ages ago).

NASA to spend $7 billion a year from 2011...rising year on year to $15 billion by 2018.

Why a load of cash going to the Russians?

I don't believe it's for the engines.   Pratt & Whitney build the RD-180's these days under licence, so that's not where the money is going.

I'll speculate (based on conversations with some interesting chaps!) that the cash going to Russia for three reasons:

1) The Shuttle schedule is being scaled down to about 13 more flights from now to 2010.   That means lots of elements of the ISS will simply never fly on STS.   Proton's are the absolute cheapest alternative launch vehicle anywhere for putting 10-20 tons of stuff 'up there'.   Perhaps NASA is paying for the launch of some of the stuff it has committed to, just doing it the cheapest way it can find.   Sensible IMHO.

2) The ISS is being scaled back and *ALL* the international partners involved are being placated by the simple use of the American Greenback.   This is a good thing because it keeps foreign governments happy with the US, and gets them off NASA's back, which then allows NASA to focus on the moon, and hopefully then Mars too.

3) NASA does not want to use STS for flying many of the cargo and crew rotation missions.   Soyuz & Progress can do that job far more economically.   NASA may still have the duty to get those jobs done, but if they can save millions of dollars by buying flights in Russia, and put that money into the Exploratrion program instead - they have my support.

IMHO, Russia had better look out though.   If SpaceX are successful with their Falcon program, they could be a cheaper alternative again - and have the benefit to the US of being within the US Economy too.   SpaceX's Falcon 9 would give Proton, Arianne V and even Delta-IV Hvy & Atlas-V a helluva run for their money.   If I were ULA, I'd be looking over my shoulder over the next few years to see if their market isn't going to just up and vanish to Elon Musk...

-Ross.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: MKremer on 09/16/2005 01:53 PM
Quote
kraisee - 16/9/2005  12:57 AM


1) The Shuttle schedule is being scaled down to about 13 more flights from now to 2010.   That means lots of elements of the ISS will simply never fly on STS.   Proton's are the absolute cheapest alternative launch vehicle anywhere for putting 10-20 tons of stuff 'up there'.   Perhaps NASA is paying for the launch of some of the stuff it has committed to, just doing it the cheapest way it can find.   Sensible IMHO.

-Ross.

Any ISS modules that are left grounded because of Shuttle flight cutbacks will be left grounded for some years to come. ISS modules were designed specifically to be launched only in the orbiter's payload bay. Thus, they *can't* be launched via an expendable booster, unless you can find a way to mount the equivalent of an orbiter payload bay support structure (including extra power for heaters and monitoring sensors) on top of an existing booster.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/16/2005 02:26 PM
There was a note recently from Griffin that the SDLV could "finish the ISS construction" - thus they could make the ISS a two stage build...with the latter parts going on a number of years after the STS is retired. Doesn't sit well with me when you think about that, but it's a possible.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: MKremer on 09/16/2005 02:48 PM
The inline SDLV will probably be the only launcher with the size and power capable to launch them. For the truss structures and larger modules a support structure would need to be pretty big and massive to limit the loads and vibrations (plus include a number of batteries or a fuel cell for power), not to mention the 5 meter or more required diameter. You're talking as much as 4 to 5 tons or more of extra 'dead' mass as well as the mass of the ISS component.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/16/2005 03:00 PM
I'm thinking about the sidemounted SDLV which is basically an Orbiter Payload on the side of an ET.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Sergi Manstov on 09/16/2005 10:56 PM
The money for Russia has a lot to do with the real possiblilty that the Shuttle will not make the grade on the next flight. One more problem that grounds will see the US need Russian help on requirements.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: SRBseparama on 09/17/2005 01:37 PM
So the Russians are our back up plan?
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Avron on 09/18/2005 01:41 AM
Quote
MKremer - 16/9/2005  10:48 AM

The inline SDLV will probably be the only launcher with the size and power capable to launch them. For the truss structures and larger modules a support structure would need to be pretty big and massive to limit the loads and vibrations (plus include a number of batteries or a fuel cell for power), not to mention the 5 meter or more required diameter. You're talking as much as 4 to 5 tons or more of extra 'dead' mass as well as the mass of the ISS component.

I was thinking along those lines as well, are we saying here, that there is no way to build the support structure, with all the power, and I guess some form of orbital tug to make sure that launched ISS segments don't go wondering off. Making use of Russian launch vehicles?
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Space101 on 09/18/2005 03:29 AM
Doesn't the US have a law where they can't use Russian stuff?
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: FransonUK on 09/18/2005 01:49 PM
I just hope it looks more interesting than an SRB with a bucket on top.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/18/2005 01:55 PM
I just want to give a media angle on this (and we've all seen what power the media has over the general public when it comes to the STS!). I personally love what I saw on the AIAA plans.

Already there's headlines like "US to go back to the moon using 1960s parts". "NASA rummages around the old shed for Moon parts". There's some surprisingly negative media on this.

Graphics like the one posted from the Orlando Sentinal do not inspire the public and they are voters and they could become 'bored' with this. You don't want uninterested voters when it comes to the White House.

I keep seeing it time and time again that people get interested in NASA because of the Shuttle. It's a great looking space plane, that produces amazing images during a mission from launch to landing...that works with the public as they aren't going to read in-depth about it's shortcomings (see recent poll results, USA Today).

I've even seen it by way of what picture you put with a story. You put an image of a Delta on, it gets half as much interest by way of readership than one with a Shuttle or an Orbiter on it - regardless of the story, and we're talking a space flight related site!

While I know people on here are obviously correct in the "so long as it works....we get out of LEO etc,etc." but it HAS to be presented as "exciting and cool" because the media does not find it viable to serve the 'space geek' element and I personally believe that the general public need to be interested or politicians will start to wonder in terms of voters interest.

I know they are working on Monday's presentation big time, so hopes are high that we'll get the images that will work for the media, like on the AIAA PDFs.

Once again, I agree with the people on here that the plan should be great, because it's a plan. It just needs to be sold as "Manned missions to the Moon and Mars" rather than "NASA to place an Apollo on top of a SRB stick as its 2010's manned space flight program."
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Colby on 09/18/2005 02:19 PM

I wonder if a grass-roots effort will do any good?  I know that from where I come from there are many people who could care less about the space program, and my own grandfather *cough cough* is against it.  There is very little media attention in local newspapers, and when it comes right down to it, those issues that are talked about in those local papers are the issues that the general public are concerned with!

So, I was going to create an article that was going to paint a great picture of the future of NASA space exploration, and send it to the two local newspapers in my county. We'll see what good it will do. I'm hoping it gets some response...

Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/18/2005 02:22 PM
If you want me to give it a readover, I'd be happy to help.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Colby on 09/18/2005 02:25 PM
Well, its not done yet, but when it is, I'll definately let you take a look at it first. :)
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: realtime on 09/18/2005 05:27 PM
Quote
Chris Bergin - 18/9/2005  9:55 AM
Graphics like the one posted from the Orlando Sentinal do not inspire the public and they are voters and they could become 'bored' with this. You don't want uninterested voters when it comes to the White House.
I think the White House is the least of NASA's worries.  It's the "let's fix everything here on earth first" crowd we have to worry about.  Ironically my own party, the Democrats, are the ones most infected with that stupid idea.

Quote
I've even seen it by way of what picture you put with a story. You put an image of a Delta on, it gets half as much interest by way of readership than one with a Shuttle or an Orbiter on it - regardless of the story, and we're talking a space flight related site!
Could also be because there are no humans on board.  Point taken, though.  Wings are cool.  Capsules are boring.

Quote
While I know people on here are obviously correct in the "so long as it works....we get out of LEO etc,etc." but it HAS to be presented as "exciting and cool" because the media does not find it viable to serve the 'space geek' element and I personally believe that the general public need to be interested or politicians will start to wonder in terms of voters interest.
Absolutely.  NASA needs a PR department that could sell shoes to a snake -- a snake with A.D.D.  

It might help if they could draw the little guys into the fold more, t/Space, etc.  It would make NASA seem like less of an exclusive entitlement program for Lockmart and Boeing.

Looking forward to tomorrow.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: kraisee on 09/18/2005 06:46 PM
Quote
realtime - 18/9/2005  1:27 PM

Absolutely.  NASA needs a PR department that could sell shoes to a snake -- a snake with A.D.D.  


I'm amazed NASA doesn't make more use of NASA-TV.   They have their own TV station for pete's sake, and they still seem boring and institutional.   Sheesh.

I have a solution:

Approach Tom Hanks, Ron Howard, James Cameron and John Travolta.   They are some of the bigger names in Hollywood who are also space buffs.   Offer them this deal:

NASA will go back to the moon in 13 years time.   Once we've done a couple of test flights and made sure its safe - we will fly each of you on a different mission to the moon, to document and tell the story in-person.

In return, you will take the reigns of NASA-TV, take the current (small) budget and make us look good from now until then.   And you guys will fund the programming from your own pockets.   That's the "fee" for the flights.

Sounds like a damned good deal to me.   NASA gets some real talent on ithe PR job for no additional cost, the famous fans get a trip to the moon, and the rest of us get to have some really awesome films and programs about it all.   Win-win situation for all IMHO.

Just my 2c.
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Colby on 09/18/2005 07:45 PM
THAT IS A GOOD IDEA!!! I agree, NASA TV is so boring when they aren't launching something, and they have so much they could show! Ho hum...
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/18/2005 10:41 PM
11am EST (4pm UK time) is when the conference/presentation starts...on NASA TV. We'll do a thread with images and updates for those unable to get the feed (or are at work etc.)
Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: gladiator1332 on 09/19/2005 02:13 AM
I'll deffinatly have to make my way down to the library at some point tomorrow during school. Otherwise from 11 AM on I'll be thinking about what I'm missing out on with the ESAS, rather than paying attention in class.

Title: RE: 60 Day Exploration Systems Architecture Study latest
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/19/2005 03:41 AM
Right. The live update thread will be here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=486&posts=1