Returning to the Moon...

[Retracnic]

As I'm sure you are already aware, the Bush administration has tasked NASA with returning men to the Moon. Proposed future Lunar exploration is to commence sometime between 2015 and 2020. My question is do you think NASA will use "off the shelf" technology or push the limits with engineering new technologies?

Unlike the Apollo program of the 60's, we already have the technology. You can stroll down to your local electronic superstore and find a refrigerator with more computing power than was used in 1969 to land Mr. Armstrong safely on the Moon.

I only ask because I feel that it would be a shame to see this new program cancelled because NASA (and it's prime contractors) felt the need to engineer 30 million dollar lunar coffee pots.

Regards,
Bryan Carter

 

[COKA]

I strongly believe that NASA will come up with something new and better. A year ago, there was the Columbia disaster... NASA will do everything in their power NOT to let that happen again. If anything similar does happend, it will be their end.

Coka

 

[princy]

A permanent base on the moon, a very expensive notion & one of questionable motive analogous of Artic stations which cost millions a year to colonise yet the return is truly negligible. We have already been to the moon & I'm not sure there is a whole lot to learn or gain. As a footstep to Mars, well, we will have to transport everything from Earth anyway so why not assemble the ship in orbit & go from there ? To explore Mars would be exciting but to have a permanent lunar station taken out by a space rock seems a tad risky !!
Cheers
Princy

 

[GraviMan]

Well, i still hold to the principle that:
if it's gravity you're trying to overcome, it's gravity you have to understand...

It is possible to build an inexpensive launch system, but not using Newtonian physics. Why would we ant to go back to the Moon? Simple - energy. If an inexpensive means is used to attain the Moon and return a very good source of solar power can be made available. Better would be an orbiting power station - since it would always face the sun...

Anyone care to throw some funding to an engineer turned physicist? (Joke)

Mart

 

[IRstuff]

I think you miss the point. When your refrigerator dies, you either call the repairman or junk it. When something catastrophic like Apollo 13 occurs, you'd better pray that triple redundancy is enough or half a dozen people die a painful death.

There is no Maytag space repairman, there is no Home Depot in space. There is radiation, there is sub-freezing temperatures; this is not your nice, comfortable kitchen.

It's one thing to lose an unmanned Beagle 2; other thing to lose human lives.

TTFN

 

[Retracnic]

Actually, I think I didn't state my point clear enough. I fully understand the necessary requirements for insuring a margin of safety in man-rated spacecraft.

When we first decided to go to the Moon in 1961 we literally did not posses the technology, materials, infrastructure or manufacturing techniques to put a man on the Moon. Almost everything had to be designed, built and engineered from scratch. Yet today we have all that is needed to accomplish the task. Which led me to wonder, will they do it with already existent and proven technologies, or will they try to engineer a solution around "as yet to be realized technology".

 

[RobWard]

NASA developed the $1 million space pen to overcome the effects of zero gravity.
Russians used a pencil.

If we're going to try to get to Mars and we've got a finite budget, then we've got to spend the money on the things that matter....

"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go past." Douglas Adams

 

[GraviMan]

"I think you miss the point. When your refrigerator dies, you either call the repairman or junk it. When something catastrophic like Apollo 13 occurs, you'd better pray that triple redundancy is enough or half a dozen people die a painful death."

Not sure if that is a response to my post, but no I don't!
A repairman will come out to fix your refrigerator in a Transit Van. If Ford had not kindly developed it for him he would have a long walk, or wouldn't bother - either way the refridgerator had better not break down. What I am saying is that with the right technology that same repair man could just as easily climb into orbit, or further, to sort out Apollo 13's fuel cells and oxygen tanks.

I enjoy flying but, with a 1 in 100 chance of the launch vehicle blowing up, you will never catch me taking a rocket. Especially when I am convinced about a better approach...

"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go past." Douglas Adams

Hehehe. The wheel - man's first attempt at manipulating gravity.

Mart

Mart

 

[bubb375]

Your question is a good one, but I'm not quite sure we can just refuel a Saturn V rocket and get to the Moon. Though the technology exists, there is no Delta "XXIV" rocket that could be cobbled together to get a manned spacecraft to the Moon. In addition, the Engineers who worked on the Apollo missions and the knowledge they had is long gone.

Unfortunately, returning to the Moon will effectively require the same engineering effort from the 1960's. Every possible scenario will be re-thought and re-engineered. Although I may agree that no new "technology" will need to be created, everthing available must be "engineered" into an acceptable package for today's standards.

On a side note, a lunar outpost has many positive aspects like low gravity, natural resources, etc. that can be used to help fabricate the outpost itself, unlike a space station were everything must be brought from earth.

Brian

 

[IRstuff]

A catastrophic failure on the Moon will require a minimum of 3 days for a repair mission to get there. We can't even afford to keep maintenance on the Hubble, and it's a lot closer. The Apollo 13 astronauts were literally hours from death several times during their flight. Only quick thinking and lots of jury-rigging save them.

There were and are numerous scenarios where multiple failures will cause short-fuse problems that cannot wait for repair missions, which will risk another crew as well.

Hot backup is possible for cutting down prep time, but absurdly expensive and prone to its own risks; just sitting on top of net energy output of a Saturn V is not exactly a cup of tea.

TTFN

 

[Chuckles159]

Have we lost our nerve that much? Space travel is risky business but there is no shortage of highly skilled and motivated people willing to try. The shuttle has a loss rate of about 1 vehicle per 50 missions. This is a lot better odds than our WWII bomber crews faced in 1943.

The loss rate faced by the explorers who opened up North America was a lot higher than 2% too. While I hate to see loss of life any more than anyone else, and as an engineer would do everything possible to prevent it, there will be losses. We had deaths in the Apollo too. Yes they were on the ground but the 3 for about 20 manned launches was no better than the 14 for 100+ shuttle launches.

As for the money, there is one government department that is far larger than needed in today's world. We are still supporting a cold war defense establishment but we have no enemies big enough to require it. If we redirect 15% of the defense budget to NASA and possibly private space companies, they would be swimming in money. Besides, the money would by and large still go to the same defense contractors so why should they care. And there would still be just as many jobs and other pork for politicians to spread around.

 

[IRstuff]

It's not a question of nerve, but minimizing foreseeable failures.

Failures are sometimes poignant and drive us to harder, other times, they can cause public opinion to scuttle an important endeavor.

NASA's "Faster, better cheaper" was ultimately given a failing grade for cutting too many corners.

TTFN

 

[Retracnic]

Though you all have brought up some interesting points, the topic has wandered from what I was originally asking.

My father worked for over 30 years at Lockheed-Martin in the space engineering field, so I am quite aware of the various safety concerns. And though safety is of paramount consideration, it is not within the spirit of the question.

Many years ago I worked for a computer manufacturer. We were approached by NASA to provide them with laptops that could be used by shuttle crews. We were given the data of what environments and conditions the laptops would be exposed to. As it turned out one, of our systems (that was already in production) fit the bill. With a few minor modifications (different system fans, different hard drive, and improved chassis EM shielding) a consumer grade product was certified for use in space. Without saying, this solution was far cheaper than engineering a dedicated solution.

So to be even more specific, what approach to new lunar exploration will NASA take? Will it be newly engineered hardware that relies heavily on already existent materials, infrastructure and launch systems, or will NASA lay out a mission profile that requires materials, tools, and techniques that have not been invented yet?

BC

 

[IRstuff]

Why does it have to be either/or?

There are going to be thousands of subsystems for this project, assuming there's actually money available, and some will be off-the-shelf, others will be re-engineered, and the remaining will require development of new systems.

The system requirements will dictate the design requirements and the degree of utility of existing technology. Given limited budgets, the designers make use of existing technology wherever possible to ensure adequate budget for the developmental items.

From the historical perspective, neither the military nor NASA have had much influence on electronic developments since the mid-80's. There's more horsepower in a single Nvidia video card than NASA and the military combined had during the Apollo era.


TTFN

 

[davefitz]

Back to the original question, Nasa will likely use new technology, for several reasons.

One, the use of new techology maximizes the "pork barrel " effect, which will dominate the politics of this sort of endeavor.

Two, the true purpose of such an effort is probably not to reach the moon, per se, but to ensure we have a trained cadre of scientists and engineers that can support and service the fleet of missiles and satellites that we depend on both for defense as well as communication. You cannot find a rationale to atract such persons from academia to an industry without some sort of vision, nor can you convince congress to provide the funds without a political acceptable show and tell game. In my opinion, that was the real reason for the 1960's push to the moon, as I recall the absolute paranoia some folks had regardign a missle gap and related questions.

 

[Hammer13]

It is too bad that the moon seems to suffer from the "been there, done that" stigma. The moon could be used for research on many things and be a proving ground for technologies necessary for further space exploration, especially the exploration of mars.

What can we expect to gain if we don't risk something? Many people, both europeans and natives, died in opening the new world to civilization. Opening space will probably end up costing less lives than any exploration effort mankind has ever undertaken but will probably yield the greatest benefits.

 

[Sparweb]

The advent of the microwave oven is not a reason to go to the moon, just like the invention of the silly space pens is not a reason to stay home.

Creating "new technology" is a benefit of the project, but not a primary one. Developing "new technology" from scratch doesn't sound like the biggest part of the cost, either, because "off the shelf" stuff needs to me tweaked and mated to the rest of the system anyway. Increased reliability due to extra engineering effort saves money later (usually).

These big projects inspire and stimulate all of us - even those not employed by NASA or the big contractors. The intangible boost that it gives everyone cannot be measured in dollars, and the benefit is always surprising. Space exploration, like cutting edge physics, chemistry, mathematics and philosophy deserve funding not because they are profitable, but because without them, there would be no profit for anyone.



Steven Fahey, CET
"Simplicate, and add more lightness" - Bill Stout