NASA's plan to return to the moon
I must admit that I was a bit surprised by the look of the proposal for the new crew launch vehicle. But I am sure glad to see that there is finally a plan to separate the crew from the cargo. I think it will also benefit the USA to, once again, have a heavy lift booster. As Yogi Berra said, "It's Déjà Vu all over again". It sure looks like "reuse" is the key word to the new strategy. Also, if I'm not mistaken wasn't on-orbit staging of the vehicle what Von Braun had originally intended to use? I realize that there are a fair number of you that aren't too keen to the manned space program anymore. But, I think if we can get the infrastructure in place - then we can have a manned program that is well worth the cost. Clear skies, Dale. Reference articles, linked to in Patrick's News: http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/sep/HQ_05266_ESAS_Release.html http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050919/full/050919-1.html http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8022
I admit that I'm really excited about moon exploration. It's as if NASA is getting back on track after a long, long detour. I say congratulations to everyone involved in this, and I am especially proud of Thiokol's role. Best wishes, Joe
I've certainly been clear in my dislike of the shuttle, but this is a whole new kettle of fish. The problems with the shuttle are legion. It's expensive, unnecessarily risky, and most importantly: doomed to low earth orbit. The new plan looks to scrap a lot of that. In retrospect, shuttle engineers may have been too eager for something new and whiz-bang, and perhaps ignored many of the valuable lessons from the Apollo program. I'm glad to see the new plan retain the lessons and technology from BOTH previous programs. Still, there are two things that strike me as a bit odd. In the lunar program, we went from Mercury, though Gemini, to Apollo. Each program was intended to accomplish specific goals and to build particular skills. I've only seen a little about the new NASA direction, but it appears that they're going right for the complete new crew vehicle all at once--one capable of going to the moon and Mars. I wonder if it might make more sense to have a few intermediate goals for preliminary versions of that vehicle. The other thing is this: When John Kennedy made his famous speech about going to the moon, it was 1961. He set a goal of getting there by the end of the decade. We did it, with half a year to spare. The new plan is to get there by 2018, thirteen years away. We've already been to the moon several times. Our basic technology and computer abilities are orders of magnitude better than they were then. So why is it going to take so long this time?
I realize that there are a fair number of you that aren't too keen to the manned space program anymore. But, I think if we can get the infrastructure in place - then we can have a manned program that is well worth the cost.
Who thinks this stuff up??? I think planning a moon mission 13 years in advance is just asking for it. 13's an unlucky number. Remember Apollo 13??? They might as well break a mirror and get it over with... ;) Quoting Michael Carnes <MichaelCarnes@earthlink.net>:
I've certainly been clear in my dislike of the shuttle, but this is a whole new kettle of fish. The problems with the shuttle are legion. It's expensive, unnecessarily risky, and most importantly: doomed to low earth orbit. The new plan looks to scrap a lot of that. In retrospect, shuttle engineers may have been too eager for something new and whiz-bang, and perhaps ignored many of the valuable lessons from the Apollo program. I'm glad to see the new plan retain the lessons and technology from BOTH previous programs.
Still, there are two things that strike me as a bit odd. In the lunar program, we went from Mercury, though Gemini, to Apollo. Each program was intended to accomplish specific goals and to build particular skills. I've only seen a little about the new NASA direction, but it appears that they're going right for the complete new crew vehicle all at once--one capable of going to the moon and Mars. I wonder if it might make more sense to have a few intermediate goals for preliminary versions of that vehicle.
The other thing is this: When John Kennedy made his famous speech about going to the moon, it was 1961. He set a goal of getting there by the end of the decade. We did it, with half a year to spare. The new plan is to get there by 2018, thirteen years away. We've already been to the moon several times. Our basic technology and computer abilities are orders of magnitude better than they were then. So why is it going to take so long this time?
I realize that there are a fair number of you that aren't too keen to the manned space program anymore. But, I think if we can get the infrastructure in place - then we can have a manned program that is well worth the cost.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
--- Michael Carnes <MichaelCarnes@earthlink.net> wrote:
I've certainly been clear in my dislike of the shuttle, but this is a whole new kettle of fish. The problems with the shuttle are legion. It's expensive, unnecessarily risky, and most importantly: doomed to low earth orbit. The new plan looks to scrap a lot of that. <snip> Still, there are two things that strike me as a bit odd. In the lunar program, we went from Mercury, though Gemini, to Apollo. Each program was intended
to accomplish specific goals and to build particular skills. <snip>
I was very disappointed to see NASA promoting this "back to past" repeat of the Apollo program as the CEV. It's old dead Apollo technology. What is needed is to knuckle down and complete the promise of the 60's X-plane program and finish a true single-stage-to-orbit space plane. IMHO, the Apollo program was, in a sense, the inappropriate detour from the X-plane series and the skill set of building the first true low-orbit single-stage-to-orbit space plane. The main problem with the shuttle program is that its replacement was defunded by the current administration in 2001. Once a true, safe SSTO space plane is built, building and maintaining orbit based lunar and Mars transit "tugs" will be simple. Yesterday's NASA's implementation announcement is part of the current overall NASA plan outlined in President Bush's 2004 "Vision-for-Space-Exploration" policy paper. http://www.free-definition.com/Vision-for-Space-Exploration.html http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf The shuttle is to be replaced by a multi-purpose Crew Exploration Vehicle to be deployed by 2014- http://www.free-definition.com/Crew-Exploration-Vehicle.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle which will be used to service the ISS and for "return to the Moon" missions by 2020. There are number of graphic timelines in this document that lay it all out - http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf But again, the "back to the past" Apollo repeat is kinda silly. Fortunately, the Russians are plugging ahead with their Kliper mini-reuseable space plane - that they unvieled at the June 2005 Paris Airshow. http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper_lebourget_2.jpg http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ The U.S. continues to play with the X-43A. http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html Finally beating the heat-shield and ram-scoop materials problems is the kind of research that will lead to practical Earth-based benefits. - Canopus56(Kurt) __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
participants (5)
-
Canopus56 -
Dale Hooper -
diveboss＠xmission.com -
Joe Bauman -
Michael Carnes