Re: Back to the Moon


"Josh Hill" wrote:
> "w.d.greene" wrote:
>
>>For those m.w. folks who are fans of NASA:
>>
>>http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17836
>>
>>Finally today was the official roll out of the plan. You probably already
>>heard about this on the news, but if not, here you go.
>>
>>Bits and pieces have been floating around in the press prior to today, but
>>it's good to be able to openly point to something and say, "See, I'm
>>working
>>on that thing right there."
>>
>>First flight of the Crew Launch Vehicle should be in 2012. First lunar
>>mission should be in 2018.
>
> OK, here's a question for you:
>
> "NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle is expected to cost $5.5 billion to
> develop, according to government and industry sources, and the Crew
> Launch Vehicle another $4.5 billion. The heavy-lift launcher, which
> would be capable of lofting 125 metric tons of payload, is expected to
> cost more than $5 billion but less than $10 billion to develop,
> according to these sources."
>
> I can see the need for a new CEV, but I thought the idea of reusing
> shuttle components was to reduce the cost of developing a new vehicle.
> Why wouldn't it be cheaper to retrofit existing designs, e.g., use the
> Delta IV heavy to launch the CEV and an upgraded Saturn 5 as the heavy
> lift vehicle?

Good question. The option of pursuing upgraded, heavy-lift versions either
the Delta IV and the Altas V was in the trade space. Launch solutions for
these options were drawn up and dutifully considered. I believe that the
reason that these were not chosen was because they could not provide a clear
pathway towards missions beyond short-term lunar sorties. In other words,
they'd be difficult to evolve into something that could be used for the
construction of a lunar base or for the pursuit of a Mars mission. The idea
here is to put into motion an evolveable architecture for the next thirty or
forty years of space exploration. That is why the center piece for the
lunar missions is a monster heavy-lift vehicle on par with the Saturn V.

Other issues also exist with the notion of using Delta IV or Atlas V as a
crew launcher. First of all, neither is human rated. The process of
bringing these vehicles up to modern human-rated standards would be nearly
tantamount to redesigning these vehicles from the ground up. Sure, it's
possible and it's something that's been examined extensively over the last
couple of years. Basically it's been examined enough to understand that it
isn't a cheap alternative. On the other hand, all of the legacy Shuttle
hardware is indeed designed to be and certified as human rated.

The option of resurrecting the Saturn V is not really a viable option.
Quite simply, the piece parts and the infrastructure just don't exist
anymore. It would be more difficult, in my opinion, to attempt to recreate
the Saturn V than to build its Shuttle-derived equivalent, which is
essentially what we plan to do.

Note that I'm not saying that what's been revealed is not the only plausible
choice. There were other options on the table that I thought to be have
some advantages over the final choice. But this is what we have and, if
given the resources and the time, I'm confident that we'll successfully pull
it off.

Hope that helps.


.

Loading