[X] My Assistant

[RedSky]

Here, supposedly, is a sneek peak at the upcoming... not yet released... report on the CEV/ Return to the Moon architecture:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/graph...07/18731963.jpg

Here's the full article:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom...=orl-home-promo

Look familiar? Basically an Apollo CSM (=CEV), a beefed up LM (4-man... but I'm sure due to budget and weight... will be cut back to 3 or 2 person).

Instead of one launch on a Saturn V equivalent, there is a crew launch CEV on a single SRB "stick" configuration, and the S4B-LM piece on the shuttle-derived vertical in-line cargo launcher... Seen here, for those who haven't run across this site yet:

http://www.safesimplesoon.com/media-images.htm

[djellison]

Just listened to Griffin's announcement, and basically, it ammounts to

"The president said we've got to do this thing, and this is about all we've got to do it with, so here it is...yeah, I know it looks like Apollo, but hey - The president said we've got to do it so there it is"

Doug

[GregM]

Just listened to Griffin's announcement, and basically, it ammounts to

"The president said we've got to do this thing, and this is about all we've got to do it with, so here it is...yeah, I know it looks like Apollo, but hey - The president said we've got to do it so there it is"

Doug

Doug, I’m gonna call you on this.

It seems that you have really been down on this plan from the get-go – and that’s OK, because everyone is entitled to an opinion. But, I see it is to the point of your colouring reality a bit here. Mike Griffin wanted to be the NASA administrator specifically because of the challenge and opportunity to lead the agency through the VSE (at least the beginnings) and the necessary re-invention of NASA, development of Constellation spacecraft, launch vehicles, and systems. He is making huge changes to the agency with his own personal stamp because he wants the process done his way – and this is because he really believes in this objective. This is not a man unenthusiastically or begrudgingly carrying out orders because the President of the United States ordered it to be done – as you have unequivocally implied. He is behind this thing 1000%. Your take on Griffin’s attitude to the program is just plain incorrect. If he sounded unenthusiastic, it is because he is putting in 12 to 15 hour days and is tired. He didn’t have this last weekend off.

However, like I also said – everyone is entitled to an opinion. Whether this is the right thing to do is still open to opinion – as long as folks have their basic understanding of things correct – and that is the key. So, might I issue a challenge here. For those naysayers I ask you this: when you criticize, what do you think is a better alternative in carrying out this objective? Be realistic here as well. You still must follow the same realities that NASA must follow:

1) Modest or no budget increase for NASA.

2) Must “finish” the Space Station to some degree.

3) Must replace the Shuttle (or at least the Orbiter).

4) Must show some tangible results in 5-15 years.

5) Must be able to garner political support.

6) Must recognize realpolitiks of international cooperation.

On broader terms, if you don’t agree with the scope, objectives, or implications of the VSE then you can also state your case as to whether the VSE is even an appropriate objective:

1) Should Americans return to the Moon?

2) Should Americans go to Mars?

3) Should they just keep going with the Space Station?

4) Should they abandon human spaceflight all together?

5) Does America as a society have what it takes to even do this sort of thing any more?

As for me, I do not love all things about this program – I am no cheerleader. But I feel that it isn’t gonna get any better than this it terms of the future of human spaceflight. The programs as laid out is fairly conservative, but is technologically sound and safe as can reasonably be. After the Shuttle, lower risk must be a key factor. It is also has expansion opportunities for the future: if things do go well, more can be done with this program. I do not know if the social and political support for this program will remain strong enough for the next 10-15 years, but I am very sure that any other proposal that would have been more ambitious – and more expensive – would not survive.

[djellison]

4) Must show some tangible results in 5-15 years.

BINGO

Bush stood there and said that this is a Journey, not a race, but then stipulated dates for things to happen, thus turning it into a race. That's my problem with it.

Going to the Moon in the 2020's using launch hardwarehardware that was designed in the 1970's just isnt good enough. Throwing away 6 SSME's every time isnt really a great start. Dont rush it thru using Shuttle hardware. Take your time, develop something new, something that will - long term - save money.

I want to see people back on the moon, I want to see people going to mars - I really do. But he said that Hundreds of people have been working for months on this plan - and to be honest, it would have taken a school kid about half an hour using a 'STS for dummies' and 'Eye-Spy Apollo Hardware'

I dont know what the right way to do this is - but what we have here is the space equivilant of Scrap Heap challenge - and it seems like some sort of last Hurrah before canning the whole exercise alltogether.

Doug

[dvandorn]

Throwing away 6 SSME's every time isnt really a great start.

I think what you're more likely to see are "SSME-equivalent" engines. For one thing, in many of the proposed configurations, you wouldn't need to throttle these engines, and could design and build cheaper, less complex engines with the same full-thrust capabilities as SSMEs.

And even for those configurations that require throttlable SSME-type engines (those which side-mount the payloads), you can make them somewhat less complex if you don't plan on recovering and refurbishing them.

If all they're planning to do is build a bunch of SSMEs based exactly on the current design, then I agree, that's not a smart way to go. But I have extreme doubts that that's what they're going to end up doing. It just doesn't make economic sense to build a bunch of engines designed for refurbishment when you know you're just going to use them once and throw them away.

-the other Doug