Discussion Construct a Moon lander within one term

[richfororbit]

It is obvious that SEI could never of happen, Goldin was being realisitic. And it isn't as if Clinton was a space buff.

 

[Urwumpe]

It is obvious that SEI could never of happen, Goldin was being realisitic. And it isn't as if Clinton was a space buff.

Not so sure there. Compared to the US Highway system, it would have been a bargain - in a similar period of time. Fiscally it was realistic. Technologically, it would have had a good chance to work. Politically, it wasn't attractive any more.

And after all, I know that I am entering Basement territory there (and I lost my basement license somewhere), but: The USA still have not forgiven the Soviet Union for ending the cold war early.

 

[richfororbit]

America helped end the soviet empire, by getting the Arabians to increase crude production. In 1986/7 the price of one barrel was $9.

 

[Urwumpe]

America helped end the soviet empire, by getting the Arabians to increase crude production. In 1986/7 the price of one barrel was $9.

fftopic:

 

[kamaz]

Not so sure there. Compared to the US Highway system, it would have been a bargain - in a similar period of time. Fiscally it was realistic. Technologically, it would have had a good chance to work. Politically, it wasn't attractive any more.

Goldwin was a product of his time and his boss. Remember Strauss-Howe: US society (and the West in general) oscillates between "strong institutions" regime and "weak institutions" regime with 80-year period. (I don't really understand why some people decry S-H as "pseudoscience" for making a simple empirical observation, but I digress.)

(click to zoom and read the red text)

Since any sensible lunar program requires a 20-year commitment, it follows that such program can only survive in the "strong institutions" period, never in the "weak institutions" period.

SEI had the misfortune of being proposed at the extreme of the "weak institutions" period (Fukuyama writes The End of History, Clinton runs on It's the economy, stupid platform). And so, SEI was killed right away. CxP, which started a decade later, managed to survive long enough to do some useful prep work, most notably fly LRO/LCROSS to recon the future landing sites.

A program which gets inititiated 2020-2025 will already start in the "strong institution" regime. This means that the program will run to completion (2040-2045), as the "strong institutions" regime should persist until 2055 in this model. However, its follow-up programs may see a series a spectacular cancellations ca. 2055, pretty much mirroring what happened during the Nixon era (ca. 1975; 1975+80=2055).

I would wager that if a next POTUS initates such a program before 2020, it will also run to completion, because the chance of cancellation will decrease with each year as the shift to "strong institutions" regime progresses. Such scenario would allow the lunar program to reach its main goals by 2035, allowing a Mars shot ca. 2050, just before US descends into "weak institutions" era again.

If you actually want to understand the mechanisms behind US space policy get To the End of the Solar System: The Story of the Nuclear Rocket by James A. Dewar. The author has analyzed the Congressional proceedings of the Nixon era and demonstrated that the root cause of NERVA's cancellation was a massive shift which occured in US society in 1960s. That shift was caused by the coming of age of the massive Baby Boomer cohort, who have essentially voted out the proponents of space exploration and voted in proponents of social transfers; and so the money was moved accordingly. (The actual machinations involved were pretty dramatic, with plenty of political backstabbing: the space/NERVA faction believed in their cause of opening the Solar System and they did not go down without a fight.)

But, observe that the mass-cancellations of 1970s killed the beyond-LEO programs but the orbital programs survived. If history repeats again (as it tends to), then it means in 2050s the Mars program will be killed as too expensive, but the lunar program will survive. Humanity tends to move by "two steps forward, one step back". This is why Mars Direct is a dumb idea

As a side note, Dewar's book also gives another, pretty surprising insight: the worst enemy of the space exploration is the academia. This why since "science" became the official goal of the space program the progress has stalled

 

[Urwumpe]

Humanity tends to move by "two steps forward, one step back".

Exactly that. :lol: But I think such political arguments are too much basement territory and offtopic here. The question is still could such a lander program be realized - lets assume politics are not trying to make sure that every screw is made in another state. It should be possible to reach CDR in 4-5 years (after CDR, its stupid to cancel the lander itself, you can only reduce the number of landers procured) and be a reasonable car lander for a reasonable price, because we can safely assume that a program that needs a too large workforce and too many resources will not just be hard to sell, but also require years of political fighting in the term of a government before even the first Phase A study is started

Just focussing on project management.

 

[kamaz]

Again, the mistake here is analyzing a lunar lander in vacuum (pun intended). The lander cannot exist outside a larger program. For starters, the lander has to be somehow delivered into LLO, which requires a launcher we don't currently have available.

I would further posit that, technically speaking, the lander is not that difficult to built. First off, one type has already been built and flown, and a lot of data about it has been preserved, including unflow specimens (although a much larger part of data has been lost). Second, engineering requirements are not really that extreme: it does not have to be aerodynamic, it does not have to withstand high accelerations (its normal operating regime is between 0 and 1/6 g) and it needs a total dv budget of 3.2km/s. Yes, it's weird to design in a sense that it's not like any other vehicle, but not that difficult objectively.

The lunar lander however is extremely hard to sell politically: it's the only part of the system which cannot be repurposed and represent a commitment to the lunar program. Recall what happened after CxP was cancelled: the HLV and Orion survived because they could have been fitted into the new "flexible path (to nowhere)" strategy. The killed parts were the lander and the surface systems. (Oh, and Ares-I, but that was a dumb idea anyway).

It follows that the lander will never be initiated until there is a political commitment for a lunar program.

Also, your assumption that a program will not be cancelled after CDR is naive. Recall Apollo 18-20 cancellations which did not provide any sigificant financial relief, but were still done to appease the Boomer voters and their representatives in Congress. Space launches are very spectacular and so will cause the detractors to accuse government of wasting money, while the already paid for hardware rusting in peace does not attract attention. Here is a recent example: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...kes-nasa-finish-useless-350-million-structure

 

[Urwumpe]

And again... that's getting basement-y. Wrong place and as much as you are right that such a thing can't exist in a political vacuum - its not necessary to consider politics for telling if something is feasible at all.

Also, your assumption that a program will not be cancelled after CDR is naive. Recall Apollo 18-20 cancellations...

Yes, as I said: Procurement can be stopped or reduced. But Apollo flew. The LM flew. Even Skylab flew.

I don't remember any space program that was cancelled after passing CDR, except the Centaur upper stage for the Space Shuttle, which was cancelled because of safety constraints. But it essentially flew with only small modifications on the Titan IV then.