From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: NASA working on Apollo rerun
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 14:57:03 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <1992Sep12.192438.29628@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>The missions would have a crew of four instead of a crew of three, in
>an enlarged Apollo-style capsule.  The craft would land directly on
>the surface instead of doing Apollo's lunar-orbit rendesvous, increasing
>costs but allowing the craft to land at lattitudes higher than the
>equator.  The system requires -- get this -- a launcher 1.5 times the
>size of Saturn 5!

Actually, the reason given was you could hit any interesting point on the Moon
with a direct launch.

>The function of these missions is an extension of Apollo.  Geology
>treks using an Apollo-style rover (again made larger to hold four
>astronauts) would be the main justification. 

It's important to know what what's there before you mine it.

> They would try out
>tiny experiments in making LOX and lunar soil bricks, as a sop to
>those who want a real lunar base.  No production plants, no
>mass driver, and no biosphere. 

You build small to test concepts. Could you show me a company which didn't test
all of its concepts, then built a pilot plant? Followed by a full commercial
plant. Get real. 

> Most time at the "base"
>would be spent by the astronauts huddled in their capsules, 
>studying each other.  There would be no revenue or commercial
>interest in the project.

None have been solicited or offered.

>No estimate of cost was given, and perhaps none is needed, given
>the political unviability of the project.  The project requires 
>a new upper stage, a new habitation capsule, a new 4-propellant lander, 
>a new rover, new spacesuits, along with the various experiments.  They 
>propose a monster rocket 1.5 times the capability of Saturn 5, which 
>would not be used by anybody outside NASA.  Thus, I would give a 
>conservative guestimate of the cost of Apollo plus the cost of SSF, 
>or $270 billion. 

Well, you're full of it. Golden et al are VERY price sensitive. This is all a
moot point since Congress won't even fund something like the Lunar Resource
Mapper.

> In an attempt to mollify Congress, NASA proposes
>to take the money out of other NASA projects, but this cost

Your estimated cost (Done by the Shezer Accounting Method: If it's not my baby,
we make it look as big as possible).

> is 19
>times the entire annual NASA budget, and NASA already admits to having
>more projects than it can fund. NASA has already cut the planetary exploration
>budget down to $300 million per year, one-one-thousandth (1/1,000) the
>cost of this project to study the geology of one body.

Sure. The one body we KNOW we can get to and work on. 

>  No doubt clever 
>accountants will give us a lower number in an attempt to make the project 
>politically viable, but that number will deserve a critical look. 

Now you're condemming it before seeing ANY real price figures. Can you quote
any NASA official on a price tag yet or are you going to wave around billions
and billions of dollars? 

                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --