Now NASA has an alternative moon launch vehicle

July 6, 2009

NASA has commissioned a study to see if there is a cheaper way to get to the moon then the 35 billion dollar redesign of the space shuttle. The study shows they could do it for 6.6 billion dollars. This is reassuring, especially in view of the renegade NASA rocket scientists I told you about last year. That renegade proposal, done as a hobby by engineers and project managers too terrified of management retribution to let their names be known, seems to have set the tone for this study. By reusing solid rockets from the shuttle as well as reused liquid rocket components the cost to do heavy lifting to the moon and beyond can be greatly reduced.

Every engineer knows that evolution rather than revolution is a better design methodology. Dragging out a white sheet of paper every project is a good way to waste money, or fail, or both. Unfortunately the goals of NASA may be more to spread money to crony contractors and keep bureaucrats in jobs rather then reach the moon. This is another sad case of the engineers being ready willing and able to do a good job but the politicians and political managers just won’t let the engineers do their job. I linked to it in the first post, but please re-read Dr. Richard Feynman’s blistering critique of the NASA culture that caused the first space shuttle explosion.

Perhaps this new NASA study is really a sign of the health of the organization. They are still too political to just accept the work of the renegade scientists, but at least they are not brushing all the good work into the dustbin of history. NASA actually investigated some or all of the proposal and then laundered it as their own study. Bravo NASA if that is what is going on. As we teeter on complete economic collapse due to the systematic looting of the economy by the finance types, it will behoove us to get to the moon in the cheapest way possible. We have to save the big money for Wall Street bonuses. I don’t like it either, but that is the reality of the society in which we live.

[Update: I found a nice drawing of the shuttle O-ring before and after redesign. You can see how the original design would force the O-rings away from the seal as the interior of the booster pressurized. They added a third O-ring and more importantly, added structure to keep the original O-rings against the sealing surface. The added complexity of the new seal is worrisome, and I wonder why they did not do a labyrinth seal to cool the gasses and put the O-rings on the outside. I assume they had to do it this way for re-usability.]

[Update: Super-Croatian Andy Turudic sent a link yesterday that I just got. It also has a video in that the title of let me find the YouTube link that is broken inside the first link in this post.]

Posted by Paul Rako on July 6, 2009 | Comments (9)

February 26, 2010

In response to: Now NASA has an alternative moon launch vehicle
AZ commented:

yes i agree that mars is the goal but the only problem is to teriform the planet to make i habitable for humans (am i correct?) because it would take approximatly 1000 years for the planet to become teriformed enough for humans even with a gas that produces more green house gasses than carbon dioxide along with that they are saying that if there is life (even microbial) they might decide not to teriform it bassed on that fact.

August 5, 2009

In response to: Now NASA has an alternative moon launch vehicle
Roger commented:

It is utterly amazing to me that this ithe first blog I have ever explored that didn't degenerate into a name calling and blame game exercise. Keep up the good debate! As an ex NASA employee I fully recommend you all read the Caib report. It documents the trouble NASA had in securing funding for the space shuttle, the resulting compromise in the shuttle design to accommodate missions that would never fly, and then leads you to the subsequent diversion of launch missions to advanced heavy lift vehicles (Atlas and Delta). DDE was right: the military industrial (congressional) complex is the greatest threat to mankind ever faced.

July 19, 2009

In response to: Now NASA has an alternative moon launch vehicle
Donnie commented:

going to the moon and all those other places would be wonderful if we didn;t have so many problems here on earth Cancer Hurricanes unsafe roads wars clean water and i could go on and on lets fix things here before we go "out there"

July 12, 2009

In response to: Now NASA has an alternative moon launch vehicle
Donnie commented:

i am glad to see the goverment is using our tax dollars for something worthwhile instead of squandering it on things like cancer research and sick children and soldiers that got their arms & legs blown off in Iraq and better hiways and global warming and the homeless and clean water YeahBoy proud to be an American!!

July 7, 2009

In response to: Now NASA has an alternative moon launch vehicle
Stiggle commented:

Only idiots want NASA funding cut off and givin to the idiots and give-away programs! Most of the great technology we enjoy today finds its roots in NASA and some other government science programs. Even with the waste, our money has been well spent on NASA and some defense research projects.

July 7, 2009

In response to: Now NASA has an alternative moon launch vehicle
Citizen commented:

The moon or mars? How about instead we don't waste the tax money so I can afford to drive to work?

July 7, 2009

In response to: Now NASA has an alternative moon launch vehicle
Just a Designer commented:

This is another one of those NASA sucks articles with very little Science or Engineering proof. For those that don't know the center fuel tank and the boosters were both redesigned. Why the center fuel tank, well look at the video footage of the accident that hot spot is liquid under preasure from the center tank leaking. The O-ring was blamed because it was easy to do, some famous scientist came up with it. You notice they blew the boosters up no evidence. Besides where do you get 35 billion, last I heard the redesign was at 8 billion.

July 6, 2009

In response to: Now NASA has an alternative moon launch vehicle
Pett commented:

Hello, Interesting, I`ll quote it on my site later. Thank you

July 6, 2009

In response to: Now NASA has an alternative moon launch vehicle
The Super-Croatian commented:

LOL@my moniker. Anyway, I think you are right about the cronyism. NASA'a always been front man for military work and a boondoggle creator for contractors (nothing wrong with that as it keeps out engineers' and scientists' axes sharp and employed), another source of funding outside the DoD budget. I suspect this has nothing to do with budgetary motivation (since when does the government care about spending responsibly?) that the Constellation program has been too long in its gestation and that the US has now fallen significantly behind schedule in getting to the moon and bringing back the goods, budget be damned. I believe this is all motivated by a modern day arms race - turns out the moon has a bunch of He3 captured just beneath its surface and He3 is an extremely rare isotope here on earth, and we're about to send an artificial meteorite to excavate and validate He3's presence. Why He3? It is a significant yield enhancer for fusion weapons, so it's no surprise that those expending a good chunk of their GDP to get there are USA, India and China. The cover story(there always is one)? Fusion POWER.... -andy t

About EDN | Site Map | Contact Us | Subscription | RSS

POST A COMMENT
Display Name

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive: