[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]

Such a pity that the inginuity of the Russian plans of the time were not enabled with the cash that was available to US efforts.

Energia is what we need today - a flexible, part re-useable heavy lift vehicle.

The idea of 'fly back' boosters was touted, but never fully developed, as liquid fueled alternatives for the Shuttle's SRBs...and if it had gone into production, would have lead to the LV for the CEV being a liquid fueled vehicle

What we have here - is an Apollo-with-Shuttle-leftovers. The devil will ofcourse be in the detail. The ability to land 4 people on the surface is an improvement obviously.

It seems that the gauntlet has been thrown down by GWB, and instead of developing a series of innovative, money saving, new ideas to achieve his goals - the plan is simply to do whatever they can to do it quick enough. If it's a journey and not a race - then we should be packing properly before we go...if you see what I mean.

Doug

[Stephen]

It seems that the gauntlet has been thrown down by GWB, and instead of developing a series of innovative, money saving, new ideas to achieve his goals - the plan is simply to do whatever they can to do it quick enough.  If it's a journey and not a race - then we should be packing properly before we go...if you see what I mean.

What sort of "innovative, money saving, new ideas" did you have in mind?

I was kinda hoping for a new heavy launch vehicle myself.

On the other hand I can see what Griffin is trying to do. He and his staff are trying to design their plans around what is available today and affordable today, not on what *might* be available tomorrow (once the visionaries get it off the drawing board). By doing so they are trying to learn from past mistakes. In particular the one NASA made (and has been bashed over the collective head about ever since) the last time a president gave NASA permission to come up with plans to send human beings beyond LEO.

The trouble with **new** ideas is that (being new) they take longer to develop than adapting old ones. You won't find new ones sitting on some designer's shelf somewhere waiting for NASA to come along and collect them. Being "innovative" and "new" probably also means the technology is untested, at least by the standards of a nation which does not want another Challenger or Columbia to live down.

They also have a habit of taking longer and being more expensive to bring to fruition than their advocates typically claim.

Consider the shuttle. It was new and innovative for its day. But it took longer to develop than something that had stuck closer to existing launch systems--eg I seem to recall they had a lot of trouble with the heat-resistant tiles--and once it was finally launched it turned out to be less capable than many had hoped for, had problems which led to the calamitous loss of two vehicles, and now appears to be in the process of being written off as a dead end (at least by those who want to explore the Moon or Mars rather than merely potter around in LEO).

I notice that Griffin has set what seem to be some fairly firm dates: first flight of the CEV by 2012 and first Moon landing by 2018. You could not really do that--not reliably--if the technology were too new and too untested. If the technology was not ready in time for the deadlines either corners would need to be cut or the deadlines would need to slip. That in turn would merely provide an excuse for detractors to scale back the plans altogether, just as both the shuttle (which originally was to be 100% reusable) and the space station were scaled back due to funding cuts.

======
Stephen

[dvandorn]

Consider the shuttle. It was new and innovative for its day. But it took longer to develop than something that had stuck closer to existing launch systems...

That's true, but every single manned spacecraft in history has taken longer to develop than originally planned.

Just in terms of American spacecraft -- the original plans called for the first Mercury manned launches in 1959. The first Gemini flights were originally scheduled for 1963. And the first Apollo flights were originally scheduled for 1965. (These "original" flight dates are all what were scheduled at the very beginnings of the spacecraft development programs.)

For the record, the first manned Mercury flew in 1961, first manned Gemini in 1965 and first manned Apollo in 1968.

And of course, the Shuttle was supposed to fly in 1978 -- and didn't fly until 1981.

I would hope that Mike Griffin is aware of all of this, and is trying to have realistic schedules put together for CEV.

As for the potential delay or cancelation of the Moon/Mars Initiative to fund Katrina relief -- unless those same Congress-critters are willing to withdraw America from manned space flight entirely, they need to spend money on either a new manned spacecraft or a re-certification of the Shuttle fleet. Neither option is cheap, and the former allows for an expanded program into the 2010s and 2020s. They may delay the heavy lift launchers and the lunar lander programs, but I bet the CEV is going to go ahead on schedule.

-the other Doug