Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to "Start with different requirements and you will end with different solutions."

re: "Start with different requirements and you will end with different solutions."
Mark Eby — (archived)

The Most pertanent details were in the article linked above. "On the more problematic side is the decision to develop such a large Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). While a large CEV certainly enables larger crews and greater comfort, it will cost more to develop, produce and launch than a smaller capsule. Furthermore, because of its excessive mass, the large CEV makes direct return lunar missions impossible, thus mandating a lunar orbit rendezvous mission architecture. This, in turn, will require the costly development and production of lunar excursion modules, and impose return rendezvous phasing complications that could hamstring the operations of a lunar base, especially if surface stays greater than two weeks are desired."

It boils down to go with a smaller CEV and we can return to the moon faster with fewer mission constraints. The counter force is wanting a 6 person vehicle for the ISS. If you believe the ISS is a waste as Zubrin does then this makes no sense. If you believe the ISS is going do some good and needs a 6 person vehicle then you go with the current plan.

I'm getting more and more negative on the ISS, but am not quite willing to right it off yet. On the other hand I am very concerned that the Human missions of NASA need to be of public interest or risk loosing public support. I think the Apollo missions were so long ago that a return to the Moon would be a big improvement of endless trips to LEO with missions that seem to do little more than show how fun it is to play in 0 g. Exploring the poles for resources is one big reason to return. Going to Mars will be even bigger.

Regards,
Mark

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (48 posts)