Comments on: The Incredible (Already) Shrinking Moon Program http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/06/the-already-incredible-shrinking-moon-program/ Random Musings from the Warped Minds of Jonathan Goff, Ken Murphy, John Hare, and Kirk Sorensen Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:38:36 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: MG http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/06/the-already-incredible-shrinking-moon-program/comment-page-1/#comment-4998 MG Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:25:13 +0000 http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1056#comment-4998 /hand-waving on I have come to the belief that the best program for human lunar missions is designing the program around 2 person crews. Propellant depot + suitably sized commercially available launchers = economical and flexible program. Amongst the MANY conceptual problems with the US space program is a misperception of incremental steps. Incrementalism is most often portrayed in terms of destinations and expanding capabilities at the destination. And to get started, the powers that be propose brand new launch vehicles to get there. This is NOT incremental. OTOH, using existing infrastructure (DIRECT emphasizes this) and existing commercial launch capacity (which DIRECT doesn't) *is* incremental... it adds minimal chunks to existing systems. I reckon I am preaching to the choir here. I have been a fan of DIRECT for quite some time, because it was better than NASA's plans. The weak response to Mr. Greason's question about propellant depot + Delta 4 / Atlas 5 / Falcon 9 convinced me that DIRECT's principal "benefit" is a federally funded program that doesn't impair federally funded human space exploration. So, thanks for welcoming me "to the club". Where do I get my jacket? Is there a secret handshake? A decoder ring? A cool hat with horns? /hand-waving on

I have come to the belief that the best program for human lunar missions is designing the program around 2 person crews. Propellant depot + suitably sized commercially available launchers = economical and flexible program.

Amongst the MANY conceptual problems with the US space program is a misperception of incremental steps. Incrementalism is most often portrayed in terms of destinations and expanding capabilities at the destination. And to get started, the powers that be propose brand new launch vehicles to get there. This is NOT incremental.

OTOH, using existing infrastructure (DIRECT emphasizes this) and existing commercial launch capacity (which DIRECT doesn’t) *is* incremental… it adds minimal chunks to existing systems.

I reckon I am preaching to the choir here. I have been a fan of DIRECT for quite some time, because it was better than NASA’s plans. The weak response to Mr. Greason’s question about propellant depot + Delta 4 / Atlas 5 / Falcon 9 convinced me that DIRECT’s principal “benefit” is a federally funded program that doesn’t impair federally funded human space exploration.

So, thanks for welcoming me “to the club”. Where do I get my jacket? Is there a secret handshake? A decoder ring? A cool hat with horns?

]]> By: Andrew Swallow http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/06/the-already-incredible-shrinking-moon-program/comment-page-1/#comment-4994 Andrew Swallow Sun, 28 Jun 2009 14:45:35 +0000 http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1056#comment-4994 The Ares I is maxed out so putting a light-weight LEO only capsule on it, such as the Dreamchaser, may be the only way of saving it. The crew transferring to the lunar lander at a spacestation at LEO (or L1) means that the single Ares V can be replaced by 2 or 3 smaller rockets. The Ares I is maxed out so putting a light-weight LEO only capsule on it, such as the Dreamchaser, may be the only way of saving it. The crew transferring to the lunar lander at a spacestation at LEO (or L1) means that the single Ares V can be replaced by 2 or 3 smaller rockets.

]]> By: Joseph http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/06/the-already-incredible-shrinking-moon-program/comment-page-1/#comment-4991 Joseph Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:03:35 +0000 http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1056#comment-4991 Jon, So one could conclude that by launching not not just one two person crew but multiple two manned crewed vehicles in rapid succession to assure mission success and provide redundancies in Earth return options. Thus, the possibilities in the expansion of crew on the surface of the moon multiply as does mission flexibility and launch vehicle options. With smaller crews one could envision elimination of one shot trips to the moon and actually launch multiple transport shuttles (Q: What might this look like?) to and from Earth orbit to L1, L2 or lunar orbit. Take reusable LSAM to the surface and back to orbit. You surmised in a previous article the possibilities of reusabilty. How might a reduction in crew number might make establishment of such an infrastructure possible? Joseph Jon,

So one could conclude that by launching not not just one two person crew but multiple two manned crewed vehicles in rapid succession to assure mission success and provide redundancies in Earth return options. Thus, the possibilities in the expansion of crew on the surface of the moon multiply as does mission flexibility and launch vehicle options.

With smaller crews one could envision elimination of one shot trips to the moon and actually launch multiple transport shuttles (Q: What might this look like?) to and from Earth orbit to L1, L2 or lunar orbit. Take reusable LSAM to the surface and back to orbit. You surmised in a previous article the possibilities of reusabilty. How might a reduction in crew number might make establishment of such an infrastructure possible?

Joseph

]]> By: Jonathan Goff http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/06/the-already-incredible-shrinking-moon-program/comment-page-1/#comment-4989 Jonathan Goff Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:44:00 +0000 http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1056#comment-4989 Brock, No, he's not really taken seriously as far as I can tell, but I was bored and trying to avoid doing real work for a while (and ticked off by his childish dismissal of an issue that I think deserves discussion). Plus, picking apart sloppy reasoning takes less effort than coming up with original thought... ok, point taken. ~Jon Brock,
No, he’s not really taken seriously as far as I can tell, but I was bored and trying to avoid doing real work for a while (and ticked off by his childish dismissal of an issue that I think deserves discussion). Plus, picking apart sloppy reasoning takes less effort than coming up with original thought…

ok, point taken.

~Jon

]]> By: Brock http://selenianboondocks.com/2009/06/the-already-incredible-shrinking-moon-program/comment-page-1/#comment-4988 Brock Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:19:06 +0000 http://selenianboondocks.com/?p=1056#comment-4988 Can anyone sum up why people respond to Mark's blog postings? Is he taken seriously among policy types, and therefore worthy of rebuttal? Because all I see are foolish opinions, poor reading comprehension skills (or deliberate misrepresentation meant to discredit the character of his targets), and a complete lack of logical argument. I don't have the engineering chops to determine whether one program design is better than another, but I know sloppy thinking when I see it - and Mark displays it in spades. Can anyone sum up why people respond to Mark’s blog postings? Is he taken seriously among policy types, and therefore worthy of rebuttal? Because all I see are foolish opinions, poor reading comprehension skills (or deliberate misrepresentation meant to discredit the character of his targets), and a complete lack of logical argument. I don’t have the engineering chops to determine whether one program design is better than another, but I know sloppy thinking when I see it – and Mark displays it in spades.

]]>