Tech woes threaten NASA's Moon plan

Saturn V +25%??

Any moonshot programme that involves taking a 40 year old rocket design and sticking it on a photocopier in 'enlarge' mode - which in essence is what NASA are doing - is a big backwards step.

NASA should be using this opportunity to resume development of things like the aerospike engine - new technologies and materials should be explored, not ignored.

How can it be so difficult...

How can it be so difficult to return to the moon? I mean it was accomplished in the late 60s, and not technology has progressed it should be easier/safer. Has NASA just forgotten the expertise it gained in that period?

I understand that they are developing en entirely new spacecraft and launch system, but surely it will be based on the Saturn V and just improved.

paris, cos she knows how to get a rocket thrusting correctly.

new design wheels anyone?

"Current technical challenges include "[software that may not be developed on time], the heat shield, a dangerous level of shaking during launch, and a hard-to-open hatch door"

So, they ditch the working and successful Apollo designs for heat shield, rocket lift system and hatch doors; to be replaced by (presumably) 'new and improved items' - that don't work.

Why do people do this??

They only want to beat China...

so they can plant a flag and dump an old quad bike there.

This comment...

...is simply to use the Paris icon.

Paris, because she knows a correct entry angle when she sees it.

Get the Russians to build it.

I recall seeing the discomfiture of the Yank rocketry industry when they found that the Russians had cracked oxygen-rich, closed-cycle rocketry some time ago and mothballed the evidence.

They'd done it the old-fashioned way. Design engine, build prototype, test, BANG. Find bit that went BANG, reinforce/modify, retest, BANG. Repeat until the BANG doesn't happen, document what it now looks like, send to production.

Then there's the new-improved, American way of doing things. Design engine, build prototype, test, BANG. Hold series of meetings on subject of BANG, recommend changes to prevent BANG, send recommendations back to design, hold workshop on new design, suggest changes to suggested changes, conduct risk analysis on proposed changes, rework budget based on impact of proposed changes, redesign, have new design signed off for prototyping, produce prototype, test, BANG. Oh and if anyone breaks a fingernail as a result of BANG, suspend project for five years of public hand-wringing.

When they saw the number of iterations the Russians had been through to get the beggars working, they worked out it would have taken them several decades to do what had actually been achieved in as many years.

They haven't learned anything from this at all.

Re: How can it be so difficult...

The "new, improved" Ares would appear to owe very little to Apollo or the Saturn V. Its a liquid fuel booster with two bloody great strap-on solid boosters, so I'd suggest it owes more to the Ariane series than to Apollo. However, NASA seems to have a strong 'not invented here' syndrome, so its possible that Ares is simply parallel design evolution and all the lessons ESA has learned are being ignored.

And yes, NASA has forgotten just about everything they learned from thje Apollo program and lost much of the data and documentation too. Why do you think they're enticing the surviving Apollo engineers out of retirement to tell the new boys how it used to be done?

@NASA in the 60's

Slightly more than that!

"NASA’s requested budget for 2007 is nearly $17 billion.(0.58% of federal budget)"

"NASA spending made up more than five percent of the federal budget during the heady days of the Apollo program. If it received five percent of the federal budget today, its annual funding level would be $139.2 billion dollars"

Stolen from The Space Review website :)

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/898/1

The push from China will see the NASA budget slowly climb over the next few years, there has been a number of "leaks" around China's space program and the lack of funding for NASA..... so you can guarantee it!

Meanwhile UK gov spend £4 billion on a nice ship but dont have the money to improve services..repair the roads etc, hmmm :s

Ares and Saturn V

@ various people asking about the relationship to the Saturn designs: Ares (the launcher) is variations on a first stage consisting of a shuttle SRB with an extra segment attached, and a second stage that reuses the Saturn J2 second stage engine. Other components will come from variants of the unmanned Delta launcher, which has proven to be pretty reliable over a couple of decades. Engines apart, the rest of the vehicle is done from scratch partly because (apart from huge advances in computer-aided design, simulation and fabrication, and materials science in the last 40 years) the blueprints and design docs for those old systems are mostly long long gone in the bowels of the various private sector contractors who actually built the thing. Some of those companies are still around but the majority have been absorbed by others or gone out of business. It's not just a case of blowing the dust off the old production line and starting it up again.

Incidentally I believe the biggest problem with Ares so far is vertical oscillations (pogoing) caused by the fundamental way a solid rocket motor runs, burning along the whole length of the tube. STS (the shuttle) doesn't suffer from this as there are two boosters tied together by the ET.

Mine's the anorak with the mission patches on the sleeve...

And for NASA's next trick

Teapots made of chocolate.

Its obvious they never went to the moon

If it were they could get the old 1969 technology and equipment out of storage and back in business in weeks.

So they're frantically having to create new equipment to get there, but based on the 1969 designs so we don't smell a rat.

For further study watch CAPRICORN ONE

This will be the first moon landing

They couldn't learn from the Saturn programme because they never landed on the moon.

(someone had to say it)

Hopefully......

..... The astronaut that steps out of the module onto the surface first will at least get his line right:

"It's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind!"

Maybe it's just me, but isn't man and mankind one in the same thing. Sure the line should have read:

"It's one small step for A MAN......"

What a dumbass armstrong was. Obviously NASA couldn't provide him with a pocket sized thesaurous or oxford english.

PARIS: Because she has a great pair of solid rocket boosters!

Are they going to build a real lander this time?

The main problem is the soundstage they filmed the original landing in has now been converted to apartments.

@ Anonymous Coward

'Incidentally I believe the biggest problem with Ares so far is vertical oscillations (pogoing) caused by the fundamental way a solid rocket motor runs, burning along the whole length of the tube. STS (the shuttle) doesn't suffer from this as there are two boosters tied together by the ET.'

Pogoing was a major problem with the Saturn V which was never entirely resolved. The unmanned Apollo 6 suffered such sever pogo that several pieces came off the rocket and it came close to structural failure. Apollos 11, 12 and 13 all experienced severe vibration during launch. On 13, the rocket very nearly never got into orbit; pogo caused one of the engines to shut down just before it tore loose of its mounting - which would have destroyed the rocket. Later flights used a slightly redesigned Saturn V and were much less rough on their crew.

Unfortunately pogo is one of those things that can't really be simulated on the ground with static tests, you can attempt to eliminate it at the design phase but the only real test is to light the candle - which is expensive and risky.

It's also worth pointing out that the Soviet N1 Moon rocket was destroyed by pogo in its last flight. The rocket was within seconds of completing the first successful burn of its first stage when pogo caused the computer to begin shutting down engines; the rocket tumbled out of control and exploded. With four out of four failures, the N1 was cancelled.

Mine's the hoodie with the gold tinted visor.

@ Joe Cooper

You're missing the point Joe, they've never BEEN!

I hoped the black 'coptor was a clue. And the comment about planting a flag and dumping a quad bike, kind of hoped that would have been a clue too.

Paris because, er, she'd not understand either mate. Sorry.

The Right Stuff

I can thoroughly recommend Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff", which is a fascinating look at the early Apollo programme, and a lot of the problems, like things blowing up, that it encountered.

Two points...

Back in '69, the health+safety crowd were still in nappies, and people were willing to take a lot of risks. That sort of behaviour is not permitted these days - there has to be a near-guarantee of getting the astronauts out there and safely back. It wouldn't surprise me if there had been a few unpublished moon-attempts from NASA and CCCP ending very badly that we won't hear anything about for a number of years, if ever.

The other point is about the lack of water for the mission. If they can't fit it in their truck, why not send it on ahead in an unmanned box near the planned site, and then pick it up when they land (and defrost it)?

The problem

Has less to do with technology than it has to do with poor leadership and management. Not to mention (or mentioned in tandem) look how much worse the bureaucracy is now.

WHY NOT JUST RE-JIG THE OLD ROCKETS?

All this new crap never works. Why not just re-jig the old rockets. Space travel is fraught with risk after all. A couple of new computers and the old Saturn V rockets and we're back on the moon.

And, how exciting to go to the Cape and watch a Saturn V lift off!

The shuttle was and is crap, all the new boosters they are designing appear to be crap too.

With nice new suits, new computers etc. they could be back on the moon by 2012.

@Dabooka

Yeah yeah, I'm sure you're one of those people who thinks he's super smart and ahead of the game cause you don't know why the sky is black in the photos.

Paris, because she doesn't know either.

Balls

NASA, and to a large extend the general populace, has lost its stones. During the ramp up to Apollo, we saw men who were willing to take the risk and hang it all on the line. Where are those men now?

Instead we have government bureaucracies who are intent on playing CYA with every decision they make. At this point in time, space travel is not a safe commodity. In our human history there were times when air & sea travel were equally unsafe. How many explorers set off to the New World and were lost to the pages of history? The rewards only come to those willing to take the risks.

Until we get some leadership with a couple brass ones, we will continue on as before. Bumbling along and trying to keep everyone safe. The real men are out there, they just choose not to get involved with the BS which takes the initiative out of everything.

On a final note... October 1957 was Sputnik. July 1969 was Apollo 11. Less than twelve years. What have we done of significance since 1996??

Paris, because she doesn't have any either.

The Truth - and what might have been.

How it was done:- http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

How it should have been done:- http://manconquersspace.com/MCSEnter.html

Mine's the one with knitting needles in the pocket.

doom and gloom

Its all a waste of time anyway

If obama gets in , you can be sure NASA's budget will be cut to ribbons and diverted to 'equality awareness' programs, thus ending the orion program

If Maccain gets in , NASA's budget will be cut to ribbons and diverted into another war, thus ending the orion program

At best the crewed stick may survive to get off the ground, but just for more low earth orbit farting about.

It took man 66 years to go from the first powered flight to the moon..... what have we done since?

Sequels

"In other industries, the sequel doesn't do as well as the original!"

That's so true! Like in the aircraft industry. Those ridiculous 747 things are nothing compared to the Write brother's plane!

Of course, aircraft are totally unrelated. Bad sequels are totally the norm in the much more relevant movie industry.

NASA-now powered by Lawyers

I bet the legal fees, the political correctness, and racial quotas enforced on every design team/contractor/subcontractor requirement had plenty to do with overruns. Plus the usual siphoning for pork, which lawyer/lawmakers are ever-so-good at.

Can you imagine the liability concerns of a moon project? A failure could cause "emotional duress" on thousands of people and they'd all sue. Not to mention the astronauts' families. Plus all those astronauts passed up for the first flights, "discriminated" against for not being in the prestegious first flight, "held back by The Man" because "they couldn't help the way they were born"-just a little slower, a little less intelligent, a little less an engineer, etc. than the guy who was chosen...

Plus, you've got to "represent" all races and religions so no one is "offended". Even if one race/gender/religion/orientation is less than .01% of the population, they have to get equal airtime. Any group not represented in prestige flights will surely sue as well.

What? hardware? Rockets? Are you insane? We can't allow such a risk of litigation!

Lawyers-what's *really* wrong with this country.

No time left for the failed AmeriKKKan state's moon mission.

How can it be so diffucult?

Because it's <NOT> based on the Saturn V.

It's based on a heavily modified shuttle design - which is not a bad idea in itself but it's still a redesign.

NASA is stuck in the same old habit of a new design for every mission, just like the U.S. nuclear power program has a new reactor design for every snowflake that falls.

The result is huge costs, delays, as the same problems have to be solved over and over and over again.

You know, like Programming.

In any Case. The U.S will be long gone as a nation before it ever gets back to the moon in any meaningful way.

It's all been faked!

I am so glad to hear someone call out the US for faking the moon landings. They also faked 9-11, or at least it was an "inside" job. The Southern states never secceded from the union eighter! The Civil war was faked! check it out at:http://www.anydumbassknowschinafakedthecivilwarintheus.com/secretesof1800s.php

Infact I have proof the US does not, and has never existed! has anyone actualy spoken to an "American"? Spain faked Columbus's trip to the "new world". Spain sent Columbus out to sea and he fell of the side of the planet! Also Rome faked Jesus's death, he's alive and well in the Vatican, hanging out with super Moses and Ghandi!

All you dumb people out there, I have swampland and a bridge to sell you!

Pogoing and fluid requirements

Pogoing might be reduced if they don't have "40 punk hits of 1976" on the stereo.

Also, if they subbed the whole thing out to the Russians, it would reduce the water requirement as they don't typically take any in their vodka.

They hide the truth, and make u dumbberer

I am so glad to hear someone call out the US for faking the moon landings. They also faked 9-11, or at least it was an "inside" job. The Southern states never secceded from the union eighter! The Civil war was faked! check it out at:http://www.anydumbassknowschinafakedthecivilwarintheus.com/secretesof1800s.php

Infact I have proof the US does not, and has never existed! has anyone actualy spoken to an "American"? Spain faked Columbus's trip to the "new world". Spain sent Columbus out to sea and he fell of the side of the planet! Also Rome faked Jesus's death, he's alive and well in the Vatican, hanging out with super Moses and Ghandi!

All you dumb people out there, I have swampland and a bridge to sell you!

what's wrong with a Soyuz?

I thought the Russians were our friends now?

The Soyuz was designed to go to the moon; why not just use that? Cheap, available, reliable - heck even the Chinese have based their designs on the Soyuz.

The Cone-shaped CM gives you a lot of advantage for reentry control - largely pointless now they are looking at water recovery - land where you want! Even Soyuz can still manage a land touchdown though!

Personally, I've always thought the US went for cone-shapes / shuttles over the somewhat unaesthetic Soyuz for exactly that reason - the US moon programme was competing with Star Trek and Buck Rogers AS WELL as the Russians - the viewing public would not stand for pea-green spacecraft that look like dumplings with bits of dragonfly stuck on randomly.

'Starbug' on Red Dwarf is a far more realistic spacecraft than anything Gene Roddenbury or George Lucas ever threw at us.

@all dicussions of Saturn V

My point was not that the new ship is an EXACT or even visually similar large copy of the old Apollo craft, but that after 40 years there has been no significant step forward in launch technology, we are still talking about solid rocket boosters and 'old-fashioned' liquid fuel engines.

NASA is suffering for the cancellation of such projects as VentureStar which was working, for example, on an aerospike engine that was more efficient than the 60's technology still used by ESA and NASA on Arianne and the Space Shuttle.

What is the point of going back to the moon if it isn't going to drive the development of safe, reliable and cheaper (in the long term) spacecraft? There are three different requirements, demanding three different craft:

1. Earth (high gravity) to orbit and back making optimal use of the fact that we can build specialised launch facilities be it long runways or launch pads.

2. Earth orbit to Moon/Mars/ano orbit. No real gravity concerns so a ship designed just to go between orbits will be light and simple.

3. Orbit to unprepared landing site and back for landing on the moon (or wherever) - different challenges again to earth take-off and landing.

Why try and do all three at the same time? Lets resurrect VentureStar or something similar to give cheaper and safer into-orbit technology, we can then design, build and test intra-orbit craft and work on the hardest bit which is a reliable and safe, reusable craft for the moon landing.

Anything that is based on non-reusable technology is a complete waste of time and money and doesn't take the human race any closer to more regularised space travel.

Paris, because even she could arrive at this conclusion...

Simple

how about NASA build the ship in earth orbit, then they can fly to the moon, beam down, do what they gotta, then shoot on over to Mars, park her in standard orbit, beam down, fight some martians or klingons or whatever, beam back up, warp out of orbit then boldly go where no man has gone before.

Paris, just because

She also experiences shaking during launch and has an exit hatch door that is hard to open.