One of the things that has helped moon-landing hoax enthusiasts has been the fact that the US has not launched an astronaut into space since 2011. Pad 39A where the Shuttles used to fly has been setting idle and the US has been buying launch services at $70 million per passenger from the only human-rated vehicle still flying, Soyuz. This has given ammunition for hoax enthusiasts to suggest that if putting humans in space in 2011 is so difficult then it must have been impossible in 1969 to put men on the moon.
The truth is not quite so exciting. Von Braun's original concept for space exploration was spelled out in "Colliers" magazine in the 1950s. He wanted a space taxi (shuttle), space station, Moon tug and a Mars mission. The space taxi would be used to build a space station. This station would then be used as a base for missions to the moon. Eventually the moon trips would become routine enough to venture to Mars. However, this isn't quite what happened.
After WWII, US atomic bomb technology advanced rapidly. So, by the time the military became serious about building missiles to carry nuclear warheads, the payload requirements had been drastically reduced. This resulted in smaller ICBMs like Redstone. Soviet atomic bomb technology did not advance as quickly so their first ICBM, R-7, was designed for a heavier warhead and considerably larger at 620,000 lbs. This rocket became Soyuz which was used for all of the satellite, animal, and human launches. When the Soviets needed something heavier, they had Proton which was about 50% larger and just under 1 million lbs.
When Sputnik was launched, the US began using the 60,000 lb Redstone to launch small satellites and for Shepard's suborbital flight. It was necessary to move up to the 260,000 lb Atlas for a manned mission to actually orbit the Earth. And, the US's largest ICBM, Titan II, which was used for Gemini weighed only 340,000 lbs. Saturn 1 was put together from Redstone components and a slightly upgraded engine, creating a 1.3 million lb craft. However, it was clear that even this vehicle could not possibly build a space station and get a lunar mission on track before 1970. So, Von Braun's plan of Earth Orbit Rendezvous was scrapped in favor of a single rocket that could boost the whole lunar mission at one time. This was Saturn V. It worked and astronauts landed on the moon.
The problem is that after the US reached the moon, NASA had no clear mission. A bit of scrounging was done and Skylab was created and then launched using leftover Apollo components. This wasn't so much in keeping with Von Braun's plan as it was to keep up with the Soviets who used a Proton to put a Salyut station in orbit in 1971. The US then got on with Von Braun's grand plan of a reusable space taxi, namely, the Space Shuttle. This idea was infectious. The Soviets built their own copy of the Shuttle called Buran. The Japanese worked on a space plane called HOPE and the ESA worked on Hermes. The Challenger disaster in 1986 was probably why Hermes was cancelled in 1992. Buran was cancelled the following year along with their Saturn V class Energia rocket. HOPE held on until 2003 and the Columbia disaster. In fact, other than a few flights by the Chinese, there have been no new human-rated craft.
The loss of Columbia was devastating to the US space program. After Challenger, there had been an effort to begin a replacement program called Venture Star. However, this was canceled in 2001 because the technology was not as promising as it had appeared. Of course, the US was already committed to the International Space Station so Shuttles would continue to fly until at least 2010. A study was done to map out how NASA should move forward. With a big space station being built, the study went back to Von Braun's concept of ongoing missions to the moon to develop new technologies for further exploration. These ideas were laid out in a Speech given by President Bush in early 2004. Except the plan didn't really stick. Rather than embracing a return to the moon with probably another station at L4, talk shifted to a Mars mission. Those excited about a Mars mission even began to see a lunar mission as a waste of time and resources.
Perhaps because of the shift in emphasis or perhaps because of other reasons, the NASA administrator, O'Keefe resigned in late 2004. His plan had been the typical one of requesting proposals in 2005, picking a few to fund through phase 1, and then selecting the best to continue in 2008. However, his replacement, Griffin, was already chomping at the bit when he took over in April 2005. Skipping the request for proposals, he did a hasty two month study which, oddly enough, agreed with the study that he had already done for the Planetary Society the previous year. Griffin jumped forward with Phase 2 on project Constellation using Shuttle boosters to power Ares 1 and Ares V. His plan was roughly equal parts desperation and confidence. With the Shuttles scheduled to be decommissioned in 2010, he needed something that could be put together very fast so that it could be flying by 2011. This brings Saturn 1 to mind which was only an interim design. However, Griffin was also confident because he believed that he had already laid the groundwork in his 2004 study.
His confidence was somewhat misplaced. Griffin had dismissed funding a human-rated version of Atlas V or a heavier version of Delta IV as O'Keefe had wanted because he was certain that Ares 1 would be better. Ares 1 would see 14 different designs as reality caught up to assumptions. The four segment boosters were not large enough and had to be extended to five segments but were still not large enough. The Constellation project mutated over time becoming later and more costly until the earliest flight was pushed back to 2016. The Obama administration inherited this along with a devastated economy. Not surprisingly, NASA was not high on the list of priorities in 2009. Shuttle flights were continued through 2011 and the decision was made that launch services would be purchased from Russia. With the desperation removed, Constellation was canceled in 2010.
The Obama administration then went back to O'Keefe's original plan with a request for proposals. However, this time the flavor was different with more private involvement. Perhaps this was because of SpaceShipOne's taking of the $10 million Ansari X prize in 2004. Prior to that flight, no one would have imagined that a new, manned craft could be developed for that kind of money. NASA picked five projects to fund through phase 1 and two of these to fund through phase 2 in addition to work already underway on Orion.
One wonders how Griffin felt last December when Orion flew to an altitude of 3,600 miles on the Delta IV Heavy that he had dismissed. Not only is Delta IV Heavy currently the largest operational rocket but, even if Ares 1 had been built, it wouldn't have been large enough to do the same mission. Ares 1 has now been replaced with Falcon 9 which is not based on Shuttle booster engines. Sometime this year, Falcon Heavy should be tested and even this larger version uses no Shuttle boosters. This rocket will nearly double the lifting capacity of Delta IV Heavy. The surprising thing is that Falcon Heavy is only supposed to cost about what a Russian Soyuz costs while lifting considerably more weight.
But, there is more. The Dragon resupply craft that takes materials up to the Space Station is being developed into a human-rated craft, Dragon 2.0. There is supposed to be a test flight using a crash dummy this year on Falcon 9. I assume this will be assembled at the hangar that is currently being built near Pad 39A. It looks like the first test flight of Boeing's human-rated CST-100 craft has been pushed back to 2016. And, Sierra Nevada's version of the Shuttle, Dream Chaser, is also supposed to be tested in 2016. Both CST-100 and Dream Chaser are planned to fly on Atlas V which will be human-rated (which was also dismissed by Griffin).
Once one of these craft is fully tested, NASA will stop buying launch services from Russia. In fact, Dragon 2.0 and CST-100 are both likely to work. CST-100 is designed to be launched by Atlas V, Delta IV, or Falcon 9 so it can use whichever rocket is best. This will be a watershed year with Soyuz finally gaining a real competitor and US human missions getting back on track. Success in these areas could push Russia to commit to development and give more options to Japan and the ESA. There is still some debate about whether a return to the moon is needed. The most obvious way to test a craft for long endurance is to have it orbit the moon or park it in L4 or L5 for a year or so. A lunar orbit seems the most productive since you could at least do lunar observations. However, there would be no easy rescue unless you also had a station at L4 or L5. But, whatever is decided, it is certain that new hardware including the Space Launch System will provide more options
It may be the case that we look back at 2011 - 2015 as the Golden Age of Moon-Hoax Enthusiasm when nothing seemed possible, space technology appeared to be a sham, and the moon was hopelessly out of reach. This may be the end of an era.
The truth is not quite so exciting. Von Braun's original concept for space exploration was spelled out in "Colliers" magazine in the 1950s. He wanted a space taxi (shuttle), space station, Moon tug and a Mars mission. The space taxi would be used to build a space station. This station would then be used as a base for missions to the moon. Eventually the moon trips would become routine enough to venture to Mars. However, this isn't quite what happened.
After WWII, US atomic bomb technology advanced rapidly. So, by the time the military became serious about building missiles to carry nuclear warheads, the payload requirements had been drastically reduced. This resulted in smaller ICBMs like Redstone. Soviet atomic bomb technology did not advance as quickly so their first ICBM, R-7, was designed for a heavier warhead and considerably larger at 620,000 lbs. This rocket became Soyuz which was used for all of the satellite, animal, and human launches. When the Soviets needed something heavier, they had Proton which was about 50% larger and just under 1 million lbs.
When Sputnik was launched, the US began using the 60,000 lb Redstone to launch small satellites and for Shepard's suborbital flight. It was necessary to move up to the 260,000 lb Atlas for a manned mission to actually orbit the Earth. And, the US's largest ICBM, Titan II, which was used for Gemini weighed only 340,000 lbs. Saturn 1 was put together from Redstone components and a slightly upgraded engine, creating a 1.3 million lb craft. However, it was clear that even this vehicle could not possibly build a space station and get a lunar mission on track before 1970. So, Von Braun's plan of Earth Orbit Rendezvous was scrapped in favor of a single rocket that could boost the whole lunar mission at one time. This was Saturn V. It worked and astronauts landed on the moon.
The problem is that after the US reached the moon, NASA had no clear mission. A bit of scrounging was done and Skylab was created and then launched using leftover Apollo components. This wasn't so much in keeping with Von Braun's plan as it was to keep up with the Soviets who used a Proton to put a Salyut station in orbit in 1971. The US then got on with Von Braun's grand plan of a reusable space taxi, namely, the Space Shuttle. This idea was infectious. The Soviets built their own copy of the Shuttle called Buran. The Japanese worked on a space plane called HOPE and the ESA worked on Hermes. The Challenger disaster in 1986 was probably why Hermes was cancelled in 1992. Buran was cancelled the following year along with their Saturn V class Energia rocket. HOPE held on until 2003 and the Columbia disaster. In fact, other than a few flights by the Chinese, there have been no new human-rated craft.
The loss of Columbia was devastating to the US space program. After Challenger, there had been an effort to begin a replacement program called Venture Star. However, this was canceled in 2001 because the technology was not as promising as it had appeared. Of course, the US was already committed to the International Space Station so Shuttles would continue to fly until at least 2010. A study was done to map out how NASA should move forward. With a big space station being built, the study went back to Von Braun's concept of ongoing missions to the moon to develop new technologies for further exploration. These ideas were laid out in a Speech given by President Bush in early 2004. Except the plan didn't really stick. Rather than embracing a return to the moon with probably another station at L4, talk shifted to a Mars mission. Those excited about a Mars mission even began to see a lunar mission as a waste of time and resources.
Perhaps because of the shift in emphasis or perhaps because of other reasons, the NASA administrator, O'Keefe resigned in late 2004. His plan had been the typical one of requesting proposals in 2005, picking a few to fund through phase 1, and then selecting the best to continue in 2008. However, his replacement, Griffin, was already chomping at the bit when he took over in April 2005. Skipping the request for proposals, he did a hasty two month study which, oddly enough, agreed with the study that he had already done for the Planetary Society the previous year. Griffin jumped forward with Phase 2 on project Constellation using Shuttle boosters to power Ares 1 and Ares V. His plan was roughly equal parts desperation and confidence. With the Shuttles scheduled to be decommissioned in 2010, he needed something that could be put together very fast so that it could be flying by 2011. This brings Saturn 1 to mind which was only an interim design. However, Griffin was also confident because he believed that he had already laid the groundwork in his 2004 study.
His confidence was somewhat misplaced. Griffin had dismissed funding a human-rated version of Atlas V or a heavier version of Delta IV as O'Keefe had wanted because he was certain that Ares 1 would be better. Ares 1 would see 14 different designs as reality caught up to assumptions. The four segment boosters were not large enough and had to be extended to five segments but were still not large enough. The Constellation project mutated over time becoming later and more costly until the earliest flight was pushed back to 2016. The Obama administration inherited this along with a devastated economy. Not surprisingly, NASA was not high on the list of priorities in 2009. Shuttle flights were continued through 2011 and the decision was made that launch services would be purchased from Russia. With the desperation removed, Constellation was canceled in 2010.
The Obama administration then went back to O'Keefe's original plan with a request for proposals. However, this time the flavor was different with more private involvement. Perhaps this was because of SpaceShipOne's taking of the $10 million Ansari X prize in 2004. Prior to that flight, no one would have imagined that a new, manned craft could be developed for that kind of money. NASA picked five projects to fund through phase 1 and two of these to fund through phase 2 in addition to work already underway on Orion.
One wonders how Griffin felt last December when Orion flew to an altitude of 3,600 miles on the Delta IV Heavy that he had dismissed. Not only is Delta IV Heavy currently the largest operational rocket but, even if Ares 1 had been built, it wouldn't have been large enough to do the same mission. Ares 1 has now been replaced with Falcon 9 which is not based on Shuttle booster engines. Sometime this year, Falcon Heavy should be tested and even this larger version uses no Shuttle boosters. This rocket will nearly double the lifting capacity of Delta IV Heavy. The surprising thing is that Falcon Heavy is only supposed to cost about what a Russian Soyuz costs while lifting considerably more weight.
But, there is more. The Dragon resupply craft that takes materials up to the Space Station is being developed into a human-rated craft, Dragon 2.0. There is supposed to be a test flight using a crash dummy this year on Falcon 9. I assume this will be assembled at the hangar that is currently being built near Pad 39A. It looks like the first test flight of Boeing's human-rated CST-100 craft has been pushed back to 2016. And, Sierra Nevada's version of the Shuttle, Dream Chaser, is also supposed to be tested in 2016. Both CST-100 and Dream Chaser are planned to fly on Atlas V which will be human-rated (which was also dismissed by Griffin).
Once one of these craft is fully tested, NASA will stop buying launch services from Russia. In fact, Dragon 2.0 and CST-100 are both likely to work. CST-100 is designed to be launched by Atlas V, Delta IV, or Falcon 9 so it can use whichever rocket is best. This will be a watershed year with Soyuz finally gaining a real competitor and US human missions getting back on track. Success in these areas could push Russia to commit to development and give more options to Japan and the ESA. There is still some debate about whether a return to the moon is needed. The most obvious way to test a craft for long endurance is to have it orbit the moon or park it in L4 or L5 for a year or so. A lunar orbit seems the most productive since you could at least do lunar observations. However, there would be no easy rescue unless you also had a station at L4 or L5. But, whatever is decided, it is certain that new hardware including the Space Launch System will provide more options
It may be the case that we look back at 2011 - 2015 as the Golden Age of Moon-Hoax Enthusiasm when nothing seemed possible, space technology appeared to be a sham, and the moon was hopelessly out of reach. This may be the end of an era.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1HiCaE0
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire