Nice suit.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/63389136/47574260341_bc09761fdf_o.0.jpg)
Nice suit.
Grumman has a design already tested. All that needs to be done is to update the flight computer with a bit more memory to eliminate those pesky 1201 alarms on final descent.
First of all the space station needs to be in earth orbit. Use it as the way station to construct the crafts to get to lunar orbit. Then build the second space station. From that station build the lunar base.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/63389136/47574260341_bc09761fdf_o.0.jpg)
Nice video screen. Will astronauts also be forced to watch CNN along with airport travelers?
Got to be better than the Israeli lander, it crashed today trying to land on the moon.
How about a highspeed rail to the moon?
Looks too much like a fire hydrant, moon-doggies will be peeing all over it.
*ping*
Assuming the US government is going to start efforts to return to the moon, how long untill the raedical left file legal cases to block it?
—Spend money on refugees/migrants instead?
—Block for Green/globull warming concerns?
—claim the effort is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
—Add your objection
“the company won’t be building the vehicle completely from scratch.”
I think they should use aluminum instead.
Why????????
r2d2 is in love.
“This new lander is separate from another lander concept that Lockheed revealed last year at the International Astronautical Congress. That design called for a much heavier, reusable lander that could take astronauts to the Moon and back in one piece — without the need of a separate ascent element. But...Lockheed has been working on a design that could be developed much more quickly.”
Great. A lander that is not reusable, makes a great long-term contract for an outfit like Lockhhed Martin which will get to keep building them as often as NASA uses them up.
I applaud the “gateway” idea as a moon-orbiting platform and for a future jumping off point for deep space travel, that won’t require breaking earth gravity for a deep space vehicle to begin its journey.
But we should be now past NOT building reusable vehicles for space. Being reusable should be a must and that goal should not be expended just to meet short-term political goals.
This is not about Trump, and him and Pence changing the goal posts from 2028 to 2024. It’s about the idea that there was nothing wrong and a lot that was good about the 2028 deadline. Trimming the requirements just to meet the 2024 deadline will in the end obtain an accomplishment that will be less, in many ways, than it could have been if it were left to 2028.
2001AD has come and gone, and I’m still waiting for the Pan Am plane, and that glorious “Wheel in Space”!
Come on guys, I’m running out of time :o)