Re: Perhaps there's hope for NASA yet

Henry Spencer wrote:
> Something like a CMG is not "heavy" in the sense of requiring a dedicated
> Atlas V Heavy launch. Said modest manned spacecraft should be designed --
> such designs have been done in the past -- to be able to trade off
> passenger capacity for cargo capacity, with enough total payload mass to
> carry the singlest largest item that might be needed for repair/resupply.

In the appendix posted by someone else, I saw nothing about plans to
enable the CEV "system" to be used to build a mars expedition ship or to
work with the space station. So I take it this will be a "creep in" that
will add to costs ?

Or will they focus solely on going to the Moon , stay for an "extended"
4 days stay on surface and return to Earth ? How often will they do this
before they get bored ?

And what happens to the CEV when/if they actually build some sort of
moon surface space station and stay there for months at a time. Will CEV
continue to orbit unmanned, or will it return to earth leaving the folks
stranded on the moon ?

Apollo had a single purpose: get a man on the moon and bring him back
safely. This was accomplished in progressive steps to test each portion
of that one mission.

Going to the Moon doesn't really test going to mars, nor does it require
anything ressembling a mars expedition ship and is this a diversion from
the real goal. And the real goal doesn't require a glorified Apollo
module as a centerpiece. It needs something bigger than the space
station, it needs totally new lander for mars, tons of cargo landing
capacity (surviving martian re-entry) etc. None of which are part of the
CEV mission.

A CEV capsule might land on Mars with modified parachutes. But you'd
still need to properly land some vehicle that will be able to get crews
back up again.


Had the goal truly been to land a man on mars and bring him back safely,
that would have been the sole focus of the announcement and then let
NASA decide how to get it done.

Had they worded the CEV mission as modular replacement for the Shuttle
minus its ability to return cargo to earth, (i.e. build a non-reusable
shuttle that launches from a conventional rocket with a detacheable crew
module to which various modules could be attached, then this would have
had more credibility.

The CEV *might* still be able to do the above, but none of the
priorities say that. And obviously, any equipment included to handle
cargo (such as arms) would self destuct upon re-entry. And if you expect
construction equipment to be available in space, it implicitely means
you want a space station in a fixed orbit that has the arm,
propulsion/orientation, command/data, telecom etc.

The way the stuff is worded, it sounds far more like a return to 1960s
capabilities and certaintly doesn't sound like advancement of space
exploration. And it negates all the achievements that have been made
since the last apollo missions, especially the experience gained with
the space station.

So Bush is telling NASA to stop taking risks developing new stuff and
return to 1960s technology so that its projects have more chance of
success, even though such projects won't advance space exploration a bit.

Bush didn't challenge NASA's engineers, it is challenging its archivists
to find the original plans for Apollo and update them up with colour LCD displays.

Because of the priority to go to the Moon, it gives CEV the wrong
mission. And it won't achieve what is really needed to develop something
to go to mars.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Perhaps theres hope for NASA yet
    ... Mars is not part of the CEV requirements because it's not part of current ... NASA's marching orders are for a return to the Moon, ... Station resupply, on the other hand, is a near-term headache. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: CEV - the best plan has already been thought of
    ... The subject is CEV ... > stage launcher for direct return to Earth from Mars using ISRU. ... > used a shuttle derived heavy lifter. ... > The hab developed for the moon can be used for Mars. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Future of Orion??
    ... practice of deep space operations sooner than a straight-to-Mars ... Going to Mars is a real expedition lasting more than a year. ... going to Earth would be better training than going to the moon. ... Besides, it isn't even a given that this CEV thing will go to the moon, and not even given that it will actually fly. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: CEV for mars mission
    ... those missions to the moon and mars possible. ... The CEV being part of a mars mission ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • NASA Releases Interactive 3-D Views of Space Station, New Mars Rover
    ... NASA RELEASES INTERACTIVE 3-D VIEWS OF SPACE STATION, NEW MARS ROVER ... technology called Photosynth. ...
    (sci.space.news)