NASA moon lander -- New information!

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Do you think that NASA will be left with an uncrewed vehicle for 4 years, or could the retirement of the Space Shuttle be postponed until 2014?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />IMO, NASA will only keep shuttle going for as long as it absolutely has to, not a mission longer. I think, as everyone probably knows, that means fulfilling its commitments to other nations by launching their modules and then drawing the line and also carrying out the final Hubble mission (if thats still on).<br /><br />The scheduled development of CEV is now far too important to be jeopardized by anything else. This is perhaps partly because of taxpayers' expectation that NASA's manned program now belongs in the vicinity of Luna/Mars, not LEO - but more importantly because other nations/companies, like it or not, believe they will soon be ready to start operating at the moon. NASA, as the world's most capable space agency, cannot afford to not be seen as leading mankind's return.<br /><br />As such I'm confident that NASA will retire the shuttle, as planned, "circa." 2010. <br /><br />If rocketman5000's right, the shuttle's retirement may in fact provide a strong incentive for the US gov't to financially ensure that <i>some form</i> of CEV (capable of voyages beyond LEO) actually materializes AND asap. That should be good news for everyone! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[j05h]

<i>> Do you think that NASA will be left with an uncrewed vehicle for 4 years, or could the retirement of the Space Shuttle be postponed until 2014?</i><br /><br />Not retiring STS will sink any and all moon plans in the mid-term. The STS budget is needed to make Orion and ARES fly, and they are planning on using elements of the same workforce. The only thing that would make sense to keep flying STS would be if Dragon or other private capsule was commercially available.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Do you think that NASA will be left with an uncrewed vehicle for 4 years, or could the retirement of the Space Shuttle be postponed until 2014?</font>/i><br /><br />When watching video of Griffin answering this question on multiple occasions (typically associated with "What if ISS isn't complete by 2010, will you keep flying the Shuttle?"), he answers with a blindingly fast and unequivocal "No."<br /><br />As long as Griffin is in charge of NASA and has decision authority, there is no way the shuttle will fly past 2010.<br /><br />However... Congress and/or the President could override or replace him.</i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"What strikes me is how much imagination and creative design NASA is applying to the Lunar Lander. It's a great contrast to the mundane and pedestrian approach taken with the Orion CEV."<br /><br />These are LM concepts and not NASA's. The lander config is driven by requirements and may end up like the Apollo LM. Just like the requirements drove the CEV. If going to and from LEO with the capability of returning from the moon is mundane, then so be it. <br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"These are LM concepts and not NASA's. "<br /><br />If you are going to bother posting replies in this thread, could you please bother to read the content of the thread first?<br /><br />The whole point of this thread is dicussion of the information contained in the link in the very first post of the thread. And of the various lander concepts linked to, possibly only one is associated with Lockheed-Martin in any way even though the listed champion of that concept is one of the Nasa centers and NOT Lockheed-Martin.<br /><br />In short, these half-dozen different lander concepts are NASA's, not Lockheed-Martin's!<br /><br />I appended the nasaspaceflight.com story about the Lockheed-Martin dual-axis thrust lunar lander concept because that story seemed relevant to this thread.

 

[gunsandrockets]

If you guys want to get into a full blown dicussion about NASA funding, you really should start a brand new thread. If no one is interested in talking further about the new lunar lander designs, it's okay to let this thread molder rather than turn it into a completely different subject.

 

[gunsandrockets]

UPDATE!<br /><br />NASA LDAC-1 Lunar Lander<br /><br />Notice the tiny cabin of the ascent stage surrounded by 4 symmetrical hypergolic propellant tanks. Notice the two giant hydrogen tanks on the descent stage, each hydrogen tank flanked by a pair of smaller oxygen tanks.<br /><br />payload shortfall triggers NASA lunar-lander redesign<br /><br />The LDAC-1 seems to very much resemble the design of the 'habitank' lander concept from the Johnson Space Center. And more confirmation that the original ESAS 'spider' configuration is dead.

 

[3488]

Thanks gunsandrockets,<br /><br />Very different to what we have seen before. <br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>