CEV "Constellation" и лунная программа НАСА

[unhappy]

Действительно, ерунда какая! Пара триллионов долларов. Негры на юге бунтовать начнут? Пусть терпят, нам на Луну сильно надо!

P.S.  дефицит бюджета у амеров в следующем году полтриллиона, они вашей любимой программе секвест устроят :!:

P.P.S. Лететь на Луну и Марс на ЖРД? Я Скотта героем не считаю (который хотел первым на полюс попасть) :cry:

[Зомби. Просто Зомби]

Негры на юге бунтовать начнут?

Ага... помню, как же...
Как у нас ждали революцию в Америке, годах в конце 60-х, начале 70-х :roll:
Ждали-ждали, ждали-ждали...
Пока не просекли, что у них это что-то вроде спорта такого...
От жары, главным образом :roll:
 :mrgreen:  :mrgreen:  :mrgreen:
Так что, да,

Пусть терпят, нам на Луну сильно надо!

:mrgreen:

дефицит бюджета у амеров в следующем году полтриллиона

У них всю дорогу такой дефицит
И ничего, крутятся как-то
Привыкли, видать

...они вашей любимой программе секвест устроят :!:

Моей? Любимой?
Да пропади она пропадом! :mrgreen:
Это если б "у нас" еще что-то было, и то...
Мой персональный интерес уже давно чисто философский :roll:
И больше, как раз, в социальном аспекте :wink:  :mrgreen:
PS. Хотя, с другой стороны, а почему это я должен болеть за "Динаму" вместо родного "Спартака"? :wink:  :lol:  :mrgreen:

Лететь на Луну и Марс на ЖРД? Я Скотта героем не считаю (который хотел первым на полюс попасть) :cry:

Бедный Скотт
Он так старался...

[Зомби. Просто Зомби]

... Она взяла его за руку, и неоднократно спросила-

      ГДЕ ДЕНЬГИ :?:  :!:  

Если которые, скажем, сами пьяницы и вечно живут с пустыми да еще и рваными карманами, это еще не значит, что все такие :roll:
 :mrgreen:

[Зомби. Просто Зомби]

P.P.S. Лететь на Луну и Марс на ЖРД? Я Скотта героем не считаю (который хотел первым на полюс попасть) :cry:

И Амундсен и Скотт очень солидно подготовились и затратили примерно одинаковые средства
Сказалась прежде всего неопытность Скотта
Это с одной стороны
А с другой, что, собственно, имеется в виду, что и Амундсен тож - "не герой"?
Что вообще надо было ждать полярной авиации?
Или спутников?
Чтобы самим, значит, совсем туда не соваться, а эдак так... со стороны... с пролета?
Но и на самолете кто-то первым летал и бился здорово, тоже не надо было "геройствовать"?
А подождать, пока роботов изобретут?
Непонятно, однако... :mrgreen:

[X]

Майкл Гриффин – честный парень. Это и хорошо, и плохо ...

Нельзя сказать, что О'Киф был "не честный" или что таковой Перминов.
Гриффин просто определенно выражается. Для выплнения конкретного и уже утвержденного дела это хорошо, учитывая что он получил карт-бланш как минимум на несколько лет.
Плохо, что договориться с такого типа людьми можно только на их условиях. И эти условия заранее известны. Компромисов ожидать не стоит.
Скажем так, он не будет торговаться. Если его сразу не устраивает цена, то он называет свою. И придеться или соглашаться  без всяких "если" или сделка не состоится.

Не совсем точно выразился, Гриффин – честный и прямой парень, но:

  NASA leader ready for liftoff
            By Dan Moffett
            Palm Beach Post Editorial Writer
            Sunday, October 02, 2005
When President Bush picked Michael Griffin to become NASA's 11th administrator in March, members of Congress looked at the background of the Johns Hopkins University physicist and were understandably impressed.
            Besides his doctorate in aerospace engineering, Dr. Griffin, 55, has five master's degrees — in electrical engineering, business administration, aerospace science, applied physics and civil
            engineering.
           
            It also turns out that he's accomplished in candor !!!! привержен прямоте,
 something that not many in Washington were prepared for.
            Last week, during a meeting with USA Today's editorial board, Dr.
            Griffin suggested that the U.S. space program had blundered its way
            through the past 30 years. He said NASA made the wrong choice when
            it ended the Apollo moon missions and decided to develop the space
            shuttle.
....
The question Dr. Griffin needs to answer with candor now is whether
            the nation may be going down the wrong path with its exploration
            plans for the next 30 years. President Bush last year set the most
            ambitious space goals in a generation when he said the country would
            build a permanent lunar space station by 2020 as a launchpad for
            manned flight to Mars and "worlds beyond." The price tag for
            returning astronauts to the moon is at least $104 billion, enough to
            rebuild New Orleans.
  Can a nation with massive hurricane damage, surging budget deficits
            and a war to fight in Iraq really afford the high cost of manned
            space flights when robot missions might advance research about as
            much? Is a return to the moon something that will capture the
            imagination of Americans? We've been there six times, so who's
            excited about No. 7?
            The space program always has relied on the imagination to sell
            itself. It was an electric moment when JFK announced in 1961 that
            the nation was committing itself to landing on the moon. Mr. Bush's
            announcement was anticlimactic as a B-movie sequel by comparison.
...
Still, Dr. Griffin is trying hard to incite a liftoff of the
            national spirit. He describes the proposed moon shot as "Apollo on
            steroids." He says the new spacecraft will have escape rockets and
            be 10 times safer than the shuttle. The capsule could carry six
            astronauts, or none and fly robotically. He says NASA can live
            within its $16 billion annual budget. "All our goals,'' he said,
            "will be funding-driven."
            A more muscular Apollo, funding-driven goals and a dйjа vu
            destination from 1969? Dr. Griffin is going to need a master's
            degree in marketing, too.
И не только в маркетинге, но и в дипломатии!
Причем, не только из-за Роскосмоса, ESA, а в гораздо большей степени из-за самой Америки. Ему уже пришлось извиняться ...

Продолжая тему поддержки VSE.
С сайта www.thespacereview.com:

The reaction to the exploration plan
by Jeff Foust
Monday, October 3, 2005

Two weeks ago NASA unveiled, with a decided lack of pomp and circumstance, its detailed plan for returning humans to the Moon. The Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) described the spacecraft and launch vehicles NASA would need to develop over the next decade-plus to have humans walking on the Moon by 2018.
...
The purpose of the ESAS was to explain how NASA would return to the Moon, not why: that is supposed to be explained by the overall Vision for Space Exploration unveiled last January. Yet much of the reaction to the plan has focused not on the technical nuts-and-bolts (so much for the heated debate between EELV- and shuttle-derived launch vehicle designs)
!!!! but on the reasons for sending humans back to the Moon in the first place, and whether the nation can afford such a program in a time of many competing demands for funding.
A review of reaction to the plan, at least in the media, suggests that NASA and its supporters need !!!! to do a much better job selling the plan to Congress and the general public if the ESAS has any hope of becoming reality.
Sticker shock
In examining the public reaction to the release of the ESAS report, this author reviewed 58 editorials and columns published in major newspapers and online news publications between September 20 and October 2. This should not be considered an exhaustive examination of the public reaction to NASA's announcement, but certainly qualifies as a representative sample of that reaction. These responses appeared in a variety of sources, ranging from leading national newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post) to small town papers (McCook (Neb.) Daily Gazette) to college dailies (Univ. of Arizona Daily Wildcat, Univ. of Texas Daily Texan).
Of the 58 editorials reviewed, just over half—30—had a decidedly negative reaction to NASA's exploration plans. Of the rest, 16 supported the plan, while the remaining 12 were either neutral or split on the plan, expressing both positive and negative sentiments. Most of that reaction was published in the first week after the ESAS announcement, with a third published within the first three days. However, the reaction continues to roll in: the Washington Post waited until October 2 (ее статью я приводил), nearly two full weeks after the announcement, before its editorial page weighed in.
It should be little surprise that in the vast majority of those editorials, the cost of the plan, $104 billion, weighed heavily in their opposition. NASA had the bad luck of unveiling this plan just three weeks after Hurricane Katrina devastated much of the Gulf Coast, including New Orleans. (Worse, the rollout of the ESAS report came just as another powerful hurricane, Rita, menaced much of the same area; fortunately, the storm weakened and, while causing substantial damage, was far less catastrophic than feared.) With the cost of hurricane relief and reconstruction expected by some to exceed $200 billion, coupled with a large budget deficit and continued expenditures associated with Iraq and Afghanistan, it has created an atmosphere where the public is highly skeptical, at the very least, of any new big-ticket items, even if (as is the case here) that cost is spread out over a decade or more.
...
While current administrator Michael Griffin wins points for being straightforward !!!
about the projected costs of the program, it appears that this price tag has become a target for anyone, from Democrats who would rather see the money spent reconstructing New Orleans to fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party who would rather see the money not spent at all. "The government is running massive deficits and the president refuses to rescind any of the enormously generous -- to be kind -- tax cuts to the richest Americans," wrote the Norwich (Conn.) Bulletin on September 20. "This is no time to be playing astronaut."
...
Why go?
A more fundamental issue associated with the reaction to the plan is that NASA has not done a good job explaining why we should spend any sizable amount of money—$104 billion or otherwise—to send humans back to the Moon. Since last January the agency, along with its supporters in industry and the activism community, have had the opportunity to impress upon the public the reasons why it is important to resume human exploration of the Moon and beyond. It would appear that they had some success in Congress, winning full funding for the exploration program in the 2005 budget and getting strong support in the 2006 budget as it winds its way through Congress. However, reaction to the ESAS announcement suggests that much of the public remains unconvinced.
To some, the ESAS plan promised to boldly go where we had gone decades before, in a manner very much like the original Apollo programs: an uncompelling vision, particularly at a cost of over $100 billion. "The retro feel of the exercise is somehow disappointing," the San Francisco Chronicle noted on September 21. ...
The Miami Herald echoed those sentiments, noting its problem with the plan was not that it was too ambitious
but that it was not ambitious enough. !!!!!
"This is news that should elicit a collective Y-A-W-N all across America. A moon mission? We've been there and done that... Where is NASA's adventurous spirit to go boldly where no human has gone before?" ...
"The primary question, however, is not whether NASA can accomplish this feat but rather why it would want to," asks the Rock Hill (S.C.) Herald, in a September 23 editorial that was widely reprinted by other newspapers. "Haven't we already been to the moon? In fact, didn't we go there six times, not counting the Apollo 13 flight that came close? And didn't we find that the moon consists largely of rocks, dust and craters?"
(An aside: Griffin's description of the plan as "Apollo on steroids" was, in hindsight, perhaps a rather unfortunate !!!! choice of words, and not just because people saw this as simply repeating the Apollo program.
The term conjured up the controversy about the use of the performance-enhancing drugs by professional athletes, like veteran baseball player Rafael Palmeiro, who was suspended for failing a steroid test just months after declaring at a Congressional hearing that he never used them. "To be on steroids, in this context, means to seek a shortcut to stardom that may provide a few moments of glory but that, in the end, leaves you either banned from the field or a burned-out hulk, wondering if it was all worth it," the Salt Lake Tribune wrote on September 21. "And that's just what NASA stands to become if it really believes we can return to the moon by 2018 simply by spending $104 billion siphoned from its other line items.")
Some editorials expressed skepticism about the ESAS plan that extended to human spaceflight in general. "We are not opposed to space exploration," explained the editors of the Contra Costa (Calif.) Times in an September 29 editorial criticizing the plan. "In fact, NASA's budget should be increased to maintain the Hubble Space Telescope, send more unmanned space probes to the planets and their moons, asteroids, comets and beyond the solar system."
....
Building support
The news, of course, isn't all bad: as noted above, many editorials expressed support for the exploration plan. That support included newspapers in areas like Florida and Alabama, with much to gain from the implementation of the ESAS plan, but also from newspapers large and small around the country. Some noted the spinoffs that have come from NASA to date, while others saw the Moon as a steppingstone to the eventual exploration of Mars. The Harrisburg (Penn.) Patriot-News called the plan "practical and efficient". The Indianapolis Star noted, "Space exploration has yielded discoveries and technologies that have created new industries, improved land management techniques, given better understanding of the climate and enabled the U.S. to be more competitive in commercial aviation." And Bruce Crosby, a columnist for the McCook (Neb.) Daily Gazette, put it this way: "We will always have better ways to spend our money here on earth. But for my money, there's no better use of tax dollars than inspiring today's first graders to do something great."
In the immediate term—the 2006 budget—NASA probably has little to worry about, since the House and Senate have passed versions of the budget that effectively fully fund the agency once again.
However, as the budget cycle starts again for 2007 in just a few short months, NASA will have to expect sharp !!!!
questioning from members of Congress and their constituents about the exploration plan. NASA has done an admirable job providing a first-order answer of how it plans to return to the Moon. The agency now needs to better explain why it deserves in the years to come the tens of billions of dollars needed to turn that plan into rockets, spaceships, and footprints on the Moon.

[X]

астронавты жаловались, что глазенки чуть было не выскочили на приборную панель

Если глазенки выпадать начнут, мона крепко зажмуриться, и ничего не случится...

[Yegor]

По-моему пора разбивать эту тему на несколько тем:
1. Эту тему переименовать в "Лунная программа НАСА 2004". Здесь будет общая информация по лунной программе НАСА.
2. "КК CEV "Constellation"".
3. "РН для CEV "Constellation"".
4. "Сверхтяжёлый РН для лунной программы НАСА 2004 (ПН 125 тонн)". А может у него какое-нибудь название уже есть?
5. "ЛК Лунный лендер НАСА 2005". Есть у него какое-нибудь название?
Я сейчас создам эти темы. Но если есть более подходящие названия то сообщите и я поменяю название темы.

[ДмитрийК]

Пошла инфа. В общем те же я.ца только с новыми подробностями:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069




и т.д.

[Agent]

Про базу есть нечто

Outpost Deployment Strategy

Assuming that the South Pole is characterized to the extent needed to answer lingering questions, NASA is looking to implement the development of a lunar outpost in a sequential fashion. According to Connolly, development of a lunar outpost is "an extension of sortie missions"

According to a presentation Connolly provided to the panel, the first items to be landed would be a power system and the essential backbone of a communications and navigation system. This would be followed on subsequent flights by landing habitat modules, logistics, and ISRU (in situ resource utilization) hardware. Once landed, these items would be assembled and plugged into the power and communication/navigation systems that were landed on the first flight. These operations would likely be done with automated or teleoperated systems.

The next step wold be for an un-crewed, LSAM - with a fueled ascent stage - to be landed at the nascent base prior to the first crew's arrival. This is a safety and operational redundancy provision that would allow for the presence of two, fueled ascent stages during crew rotations at the base.

In planning this outpost, NASA has been incorporating a number of design principles. First, once things have been landed, they should not need to be moved on the surface unless absolutely necessary. Landing things at the outpost needs to be done with a common cargo descent stage. Autonomous activities such as walking around and interacting with payloads, should only be performed if absolutely necessary. When the crew is required to deploy elements of the outpost, the tasks should be limited and simple. Common functions such as power distribution, should be performed in a common, uniform fashion. When logistics are delivered, minimal crew time - and robotic manipulation - should be required.

[Agent]

Один из проектов, предложенных в NIAC - A Deep Field Infrared Observatory near the Lunar Pole перешел в фазу 2


The results of the Phase 1 studies are evaluated, and the most promising are selected for further research into the major feasibility issues associated with cost, performance, development time, and technology through a Phase 2 award. Phase 2 studies can be up to two years long and receive as much as $400,000.

"These NIAC Phase II awards have overcome their initial obstacles and fit well into possible long term NASA plans," said Sharon Garrison, NIAC Coordinator for NASA at the Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "NASA integration beyond Phase II will ultimately be necessary for the successful fusion of these concepts into NASA's missions."

Five proposals were selected for the 2005 Phase II studies, with the performance period from Sept. 1, 2005 to Aug. 31, 2007:

- Redesigning Living Organisms for Mars, Principle investigator (PI): Dr. Wendy F. Boss of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C.

- New Worlds Imager, PI: Dr. Webster Cash of the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo.

- Microbots for Large-Scale Planetary Surface and Subsurface Exploration, PI: Prof. Steven Dubowsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.

- Investigation of the Feasibility of Laser Trapped Mirrors, PI: Dr. Elizabeth McCormack, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Penn.

- A Deep Field Infrared Observatory near the Lunar Pole, PI: Dr. Simon P. Worden, Steward Observatory, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz.

[X]

А как можно оценить наиболее подходящее место для лунной базы?
По таким критериям?
- наличие реголита (проект гелий 3)
- максимально солнечное место (энергия и опять же гелий)
- наличие хоть каких-то намеков на возможность получения кислорода и воды
- простота и экономичность прилунения и обратного старта
- бесперебойная связь с Землей
Наличие рядом глубокой лунной трещины(исследования коры луны, опять же вода и кислород, да и энергия за счет разности температур)

[mrvyrsky]

Мне так кажеться, что вполне правдоподобно...
Факт, известный широко: во времена Екатерины II был ОДИН_ЕДИНСТВЕННЫЙ смертный приговор: Емельке Пугачеву
А так - ваще не казнили смертию
(Вне боевых действий, ессессно... ну там уж... извини :mrgreen: , другой расклад)

Если уж хрюкать по подобной статистике, то можно сделать и прямо противоположный вывод: атеизм  сдерживает преступность. Достаточно сравнить свободный и демократичный 1995-й год с диктаторским 1985-м.
Кстати, насчёт демократичного телевизера: давеча предложил сделать фильм на одну злободневную тему. Люди КОНКРЕТНО испугались.
Звиняйте за оффтоп.
Между прочим, пилотируемая космонавтика несёт в себе ещё один, очень важный момент - моральный. И как только мы прекратим летать, мы встанем на корачки и... обратно в пещеры.
Теперь в топ.
А расскажите чё-нть про CEV!  :twisted:

[mrvyrsky]

Тем более, что фактов-статистики где посмотреть - нема будет
:mrgreen:

Я млею, насчёт "негде посмотреть". Сходите в библиотеку, в крим. отдел. Или возьмите и почитайте "Историю государства Российского" Соловьёва. Вот по чему, а по криминалу, так инфы достоверной валом. И ни при чём здесь православие. Совсем ни при чём. Если преступления не регистрируются, не значит, что их нет.
А телевизер, сссно, вещь непогрешимая  :mrgreen:

[mrvyrsky]

Человек сейчас не сильно зависит от бананов с ветки. Есть города за полярным кругом, надо будет построят и поселения на других планетах.

Вы отстали от жизни. В странах забугорных развитого капитализма городов за полярным кругом уже не строят. Работяг доставляет где нибудь за полярный круг или на нефтеплатформу вертолетами на пару недель. Вкалывают они 12 часов в сутки, 7 дней в неделю, потом пару недель прогуливают цветные бумажки где нибудь в Калифорнии.

Точно. Еженедельно меняют всех Норвежцев, финнов и далее по списку на Калифорнийцев  :twisted:

[X]

[Logan]

Ууу! Какие мы оптимисты

[Agent]

Гриффин речь толкнул

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18543

Мысль такая - то, чем займетья ща НАСА (СEV и носители) будет "space highways" по аналогии с земными хайвеями. Поэтому так простенько, но универсально  выбранная архитектура и  выглядит - ради потенциальной доступности бизнесу.
Генеральная цель - "government space activity must become a lesser rather than a greater part of what it is that humans do in space"

[Agent]

Бюджет на 2006 перекраивают конкретно... Прометеус практически остановлен, наука по МКС наполовину режеться и тд и тп.
Все в угоду CEV, и 19 полетов Шаттлов
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18557

[Ворон]

А в чём унификация-то?

 В том, что взяли ускоритель от шаттла?

[Agent]

А в чём унификация-то?

 В том, что взяли ускоритель от шаттла?

Система делиться на куски. Доставка большого груза - тяжелый носитель, малого - CEV без капсулы,  возвращаемого\людей - CEV с капсулой.
Также в любой комбинации.
Заплатить за полет Шаттла (а уж тем более его купить и содержать) не мог позволить себе никто. А тут уже возможны варианты.
По сути ничего принципиально нового в сравнении с Союзом\Прогрессом\Протоном, но на современном уровне (то есть еще лет 20-30 жизни) и открыто для инвестиций.