White House Backs NASA Plan for Vehicles

NY Times ^ | September 16, 2005 | WILLIAM J. BROAD

[Names Ash Housewares]

Time to go back, this time to stay.

[Names Ash Housewares]

[Paleo Conservative]

I wonder if a Hubble refurbishment mission would be doable with the new vehicles before it can't be fixed?

[Names Ash Housewares]

Shuttle may yet visit Hubble one more time.....

http://www.space.com/news/050429_hubble_griffin.html

[kimosabe31]

bump

[kublia khan]

Is it a single use craft?

[Paleo Conservative]

If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.

[Yossarian]

How is this significantly different than Apollo?

OK, the crew is twice as big, the duration on surface twice as long, the crew launches separately, and they don't land on water. But still, it doesn't seem like a stretch, especially for the money and time they want to spend!

[Names Ash Housewares]

"How is this significantly different than Apollo?"

Also more of the moon can be landed on > the far side and the all important poles where water ice is suspected to be. Also we will learn to "live off the land". Extracting necessary materials directly from the soil.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2004/04-072.html

Mike Duke — a geologist with 25 years of experience working for NASA — leads research to help turn lunar and Martian resources into valuable products like rocket propellant, power and breathable air.

[Barney59]

Looks like a revamp of Apollo, unless they salvage the boosters (SRB's like Shuttle)?

Wonder if they're planning a series of Moon satellites for communication and navigation?

[Names Ash Housewares]

"Looks like a revamp of Apollo, unless they salvage the boosters (SRB's like Shuttle)?"

SRB's will be used, I believe with an extra segment so a bit taller. Shuttle External tank and Main Engines as well in the heavy lift vehicle. She will be a big monster! as it will be in-line and not piggyback. Much infrastructure and already trained personnel can be used. Saving time and money.

[BigBobber]

would put the payloads atop the rockets - as far as possible from the dangers of firing engines and falling debris, which were responsible for the accidents that destroyed the Challenger in 1986 and the Columbia in 2003

Obvious solution to the current flawed design.

[neverdem]

A Marshy Expanse Is Stripped to the Bone

Deadly avian flu keeps N.J. on edge

Study Weighs the Two Types of Mammogram

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list. Anyone can post any unrelated link as they see fit.

[greasepaint]

landing like a glider, just plain stupid,
just a gimmuck to make current spaceflight
different than Saturn 5 era.

bringing back the engines, stupid,
tris to give the false impression that
spaceflight is somehow close to airplane travel

why do people offer the false impression that
a return capsule is not re-useable

[XBob]

ping

another waste of mohney - sending another small buggy to the moon.

when will they start to figure out how to do some really heavy lifting?

[Cincinatus]

How is this significantly different than Apollo?

In two principal ways. First, the systems making up the vehicles are being designed for maximum leverage -- long life, cryo-based propulsion, potential reuse in space. Second, the mission is different. In Apollo, the mission was to prove we could land on the Moon and return safely to Earth. In this case, the mission is to determine the best site to collect and use the resources of the Moon and to emplace the necessary infrastructure to do so.

Admittedly, the early missions will be very much like a "super-Apollo." However, they have potential to grow into something very different. Apollo, for all its beauty, was essentially a technical dead-end; one-use systems, storable propellants, a paradigm of launching everything from Earth. This system is designed from the beginning to adapt to a different paradigm -- the use of off-planet resources (e.g., lunar manufactured propellants) to create a permanent transportation infrastructure in cislunar space.

Should some things have been done differently? Possibly; you can never satisfy everybody by making architectural choices. However, it's a system that will get us back to the Moon with the minimal possible extra investment. It's a start back on the road to real space capability. And it's better than the alternative, which is extinction of human exploration.

[ken5050]

The CEV look like a LEM on steriods..

and any predictions before someone says we can't afford it, should put the $$$ instead into helping the poor in NOLA

[Cincinatus]

The CEV look like a LEM on steriods..

That's the LSAM (Lunar Surface Access Module, or some such...) -- the CEV is the conical, Command Module-shaped piece that's launched on "the stick."

any predictions before someone says we can't afford it

Already happened -- see any FR thread on this topic and the naysayers are always present in full force.

[Prime Choice]

I wonder if a Hubble refurbishment mission would be doable with the new vehicles before it can't be fixed?

It's not in the plan. What is in the plan is construction of a killer robot that will be launched and will latch itself onto Hubble and force its destructive de-orbit.

I think it's safe to say that the next space telescope will be set on an orbital platform that won't require gyroscopes or thrusters for it to maintain orbit. That is to say, it'll be a lunar station.