Re: Why 13 years?


Henry Spencer wrote:
>
> Three years to develop a major chunk of new hardware is feasible only as a
> crash program with unlimited funding and freedom to ignore red tape.
> Roughly speaking, you need a year to get the design about right and build
> up the organizations needed, a year for detail development and subsystem
> work, and a year for testing and fixing. And the result is likely to be a
> bit flaky, more a lightly-shaken-down prototype than a finished product.
>
> (In favorable circumstances you can sometimes beat that, but the current
> situation isn't especially favorable.)
>
> Note that Apollo took eight years, despite generous funding, a new
> organization with minimal red tape, and a strong sense of urgency.
>
Apollo was a start from scratch, and agree that 3 years is too tight.
If NASA started now at a reasonable pace, they could develop in about
seven years:
- SDHLV
- CEV
- Lunar Lander
- Lunar Hab module
- Lunar surface equipment

Then they could have a man on the moon by 2013, and a base in 2014. (I
see no need for multiple Apollo type missions).

The shorter the program, the less political risk and the more technical
risk there is.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Space station future adrift (Soyuz purchase crisis)
    ... >> For a crash program, it is important to distinguish between ... Most notably, Apollo was ... (The CM heatshield was drastically overbuilt for a *lunar* ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Why 13 years?
    ... >>> Three years to develop a major chunk of new hardware is feasible only as a ... >>> crash program with unlimited funding and freedom to ignore red tape... ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Why 13 years?
    ... >> Three years to develop a major chunk of new hardware is feasible only as a ... >> crash program with unlimited funding and freedom to ignore red tape... ...
    (sci.space.policy)