Moon Plans Unveiled...a new Apollo?

[BReif]

Finally, NASA's anticipated Return to the Moon plan has been unveiled, revealing a seemingly Apollo-like plan to land astronauts on the Moon for 7 day stays, doing surface exploration, and then returning to Earth. Later on, those stays could become 6 months, like current ISS missions. What I did not see in the moon plans that I had hoped to see was the construction of a permanent outpost, or base on the lunar surface for permanent human presence. I had hoped to see in this plan, a Lunar Outpost or base becoming part of the infasructure of a Mars and beyond exploration plan. As it looks now, onc we are ready to go to Mars, we abandon the Moon. I find that to be incompatable with the spirit of the Vision for Space Exploration's call for a return to the Moon, and extending human presence throughout the solar system. While starting with missions that are similar to the Apollo program's missions is understandable, I had hoped to see something more permanent on the moon stem from it.<br /><br />

 

[grooble]

Seems to be that they will only do a base if they get either more money or international partners.

 

[vt_hokie]

Overall, very disappointing. I always thought we'd have more to look forward to in the new century than a rehash of Apollo. <br /><br />Does today's announcement mean that Lockheed's lifting body proposal is dead?

 

[nacnud]

What is disappointing about this? The design is a rare victory for common sense over flashy CGI. This could become the US version of Soyuz, a vehicle used long after its designers have retired.

 

[vt_hokie]

Great, we're getting our own version of the 1960's vintage Soyuz just as the Russians are advancing toward a reusable space plane! Guess we're swapping roles, in a sense. <br /><br />It's hard to get excited after going from hopes of X-30/NASP to X-33/VentureStar to OSP to this rehash of 1960's style Apollo capsules. Oh well, maybe Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites, and SpaceX, and others can do something exciting while NASA lives in the past!<br /><br />As I said in a previous post:<br /><br />I think that the arbitrary "drop dead" shuttle retirement date of 2010 should be lifted, and instead the program should be allowed to finish out the 28 flights remaining in the manifest, however long that takes. The incremental cost of completing the space station pales in comparison to the investment made thus far. Also, wouldn't it make sense to keep Endeavour flying a little longer than Discovery and Atlantis, being that it is significantly younger and has the fewest flights? <br /><br />I fear that the new "Vision for Space Exploration" will maybe give us a 1960's style capsule launched on the "SRB stick", if we're lucky, and not much more. Perhaps in 15 years we'll get the "Shuttle-derived Heavy Lift Vehicle" - that is if technology doesn't pass it by and make such an expensive launch vehicle obsolete - but I don't see any money left over to build anything to launch on this heavy lifter! Apollo got us to the moon within a decade, and I don't really see the current program getting us anywhere in the next 20 or 30 years! <br /><br />I strongly believe that before we worry about doing more in space, we need to focus on getting people and payloads to and from space more cheaply and reliably. The "VSE" is inherently flawed, in my view, because it rests on a shaky foundation of obsolete technology. New, safer, more affordable launch vehicles are a necessity if we are going to truly open up the space frontier!

 

[nacnud]

You could have Apollo again, or better, in a short time but to be honest unless you can find the money you'll just end up with more pictures of unfinished hardware.<br /><br />The benefit of this new architecture is that NASA can do it on the current funding levels <b>without</b> cutting funding from other areas, i.e. aeronautics and unmanned systems. The X-30, X-33 etc produce some nice tech but in the end no real vehicle, this time the tech is already there.<br />

 

[spacefire]

unfortunatley, it's all politically motivated. Since democrats pushed the X33 and failed, Republicans are not going to do the same, rather, they are going to try and redo something that worked in the past, i.e. the Apollo program. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

MrMorris should be so happy....and he's gonna stay happy until this program is cancelled.<br />I don't think a single piece of hardware from the VSE is going to get built. It's just too plain stupid and an obvious attempt by NASA to justify itself somehow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

"Yes, however their new proposal will be an apollo type capsule"<br /><br />Yawn. I'm quickly becoming rather disinterested in our space program, and I was always one who was very much a proponent and enthusiast. Like I said, I hope we see some new and innovative stuff from the "little guys" like Rutan, Elon Musk, etc. because I sure don't see much to get excited about with NASA these days.

 

[nacnud]

What is stupid about it, politically or on an engineering level?

 

[edkyle99]

I think that a reusable ballistic capsule is an *advance* compared to the inefficient, dangerous, unnecessarily heavy space shuttle. The capsule is the most mass-efficient approach (who needs wings in space?) - and less mass is money saved when it comes to the space launch business. <br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[spacefire]

hey, google 'lifting body' <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

Lifting bodies are too fancy and complex for the new "do it on the cheap" NASA. Innovation, new technologies, and risk are not a part of the new "vision" obviously. <br /><br />Maybe if I ever have children, their children or grandchildren will be able to see the types of breakthroughs that my parents and grandparents witnessed in their lives.

 

[edkyle99]

NASA, being a government agency, is unavoidably tied to politics. But I don't think it is possible to say that X-33 is a "Democratic Party" program or that CEV is "Republican", etc. I think that both parties would like for NASA to be steadily, but not excessively, funded and to do programs that can on the one hand inspire and on the other hand not produce repititious disasters. <br /><br />The plan announced today is not so much about hardware as it is a framework for NASA's long-term survival. It seems to be a sensible, realistic architecture for the agency that offers the possibility of much more excitement and useful technology development than the programs that NASA has been focused on since the mid-1970s.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[spacefire]

&%$#@! that, the private industry is gonna build them in our life time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[edkyle99]

Who needs a lifting body in space? A capsule still beats it in terms of dry mass.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[vt_hokie]

In a properly designed winged or lifting body spacecraft, crew egress is possible if there are problems late in the descent. In a capsule, what happens if the jumble of lines and parachutes fails to deploy properly? I guess you just wait to hit the ground at 200+ mph!

 

[drumrguy]

I just watched the 'vision' as the call it on cnn.com.. I'm not impressed in the least. First, its going to take them another 10-15 years just to get there, using existing shuttle technology mind you, and when we do, its going to be no different from what we did back in the 60's.. Whats the point? Go big or don't go at all. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.<br /><br />C'mon private industry, show us how it should be done.

 

[vt_hokie]

"Who needs a lifting body in space? A capsule still beats it in terms of dry mass."<br /><br />And a lifting body still beats it in terms of g-loads and crossrange capability!

 

[trailrider]

NONE of these look like REAL rockets, the one's based on the V-2 finned job that Chestley Bonestell used to paint!<br /><br />On the other hand, the point is to get humans back to the Moon and then on to Mars. And, personally, I don't care if they use Wiley Coyote's "Acme Slingshot". Just get us out there! The permanent bases on the Moon will come if there is anything commercially viable on that body, including space tourism, that can be made profitable for somebody.<br /><br />Remember, in engineering: Form follows function. You don't need wings to get to Luna and back. A ballistic shape will do just fine until we have energy sources capable of de-orbit and de-boosting us through the Earth's atmosphere. <br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra!<br />Trailrider

 

[launchme]

I agree!<br /><br />If this plan will get us to the moon and mars, then what are we waiting for. <br />NASA has a plan to get humans past LEO!!! I won't argue about what it looks like. Lets just fly it<br /><br />PS.. I heard that it could also be cheaper .

 

[rfoshaug]

I think the reason why many people are disappointed with this plan is that it will use ideas and techniques seen before in Apollo and the shuttle program, instead of creating something that visually is radically different than what we've seen before.<br /><br />But this is exactly why this project may get off the ground. All the shuttle parts used are known to be very reliable. And all the Apollo techiques are also proven. All the fantastic vehicles (NASP, VentureStar etc.) have been cancelled because they were way too ambitious. This is a plan NASA knows is possible. And as Griffin said, the Apollo guys just got it right. But with modern technology (computers, fuels, engines, materials) they can do it better, safer and cheaper than Apollo.<br /><br />That doesn't mean that NASA will use 40 years old technology, but it indicates that the space shuttle - although a technological wonder and a fantastic machine - was a mistake because it locked NASA in LEO for 30 years. To go beyond LEO, NASA now needs to go back in time and pick up where it left off when Apollo ended. That said, the experience gained in over 100 shuttle flights will be a tremendous help in this process, both in reusing shuttle components and experience in manned spaceflight in general.<br /><br />And NASA needs to gain more experience through a new lunar program before attempting a Mars journey. If they had made a gigantic Mars-bound craft from scratch, it would have been extremely expensive. There would probably have been 1, maybe 2 or even 3 missions, but that would be it. Then what? But using the approach outlined by Griffin today, NASA secures sustained human presence in space (both LEO and beyond) for many many years.<br /><br /><br />"Like I said, I hope we see some new and innovative stuff from the "little guys" like Rutan, Elon Musk, etc. because I sure don't see much to get excited about with NASA these days."<br /><br />Rutan, Musk etc. are now as experienced as NASA was just after Alan Shepard had don <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[jcdenton]

One thing many people forget is that the Apollo program was made to get to the Moon as fast as possible with little consideration for the long haul. This program, if successful, will allow the 4 astronauts, instead of 2, to stay on the Moon's surface for a much longer period of time, up to 1 week initially, as opposed to 3 days in Apollo 17. Also, the CEV lunar capsule will be reusable up to 10 times. That's definitely not an Apollo rehash. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

Well, I want to see a new generation of fully reusable "space planes", so I hope somebody can pull it off if NASA won't. Something like SpaceDev's X-34 derived "Dreamchaser" is more of a step forward than an updated Apollo CM tin can, imo.

 

[barrykirk]

One point that not to many people have picked up on is the androgenous docking port system. <br /><br />I would think that is a major breakthrough. Standardized docking ports. I'll bet that will make contingency / emerigency rescue type of stuff a lot easier. <br /><br />You won't have the scenerio, Uh, the rescue ship arrived, but it couldn't dock with the stranded ship... Ooops!!!<br /><br />It should also allow much more flexibility for planning missions. IMHO