NASA Reconsiders Its Moon Plans

I've been supportive of most of Obama's policy changes, but I can't believe that with the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing just days away, he would think of scrapping the only currently viable way of getting the US back to the moon. The Constellation program may have problems, and it certainly seems a step backwards from reusable spacecraft, but we do need the capability of getting beyond low Earth orbit if we want to maintain a viable space program. For an administration that has sold itself on change, hope, and vision, President Obama and his advisors might want to have a little more enthusiasm for the manned space program. The only possible long term future for humanity involves spreading beyond this one planet. You never keep all of your eggs in one basket.

ummmm, sounds like the shuttle c program being reborn. they've done a lot of the hardware engineering for this sort of thing, and they used to have a full scale mockup of the shuttle c at marshall space center.

I think the bottom line should really be not how much money is spent in getting people from the pad to orbit but rather how much is spent on the comforts, operational capabilities and quality of life provided by the space ship components needed for the space mission itself. The launch is over between 8-10 minutes, and it is insane to overthink the importance of the launch platforms. America's space capabilities in launching with precision of thrust and guidance is without match, and in fact getting to orbit is all about fine-tune control of guidance and thrust and little more. From External Tanks to First Stage Boosters, they are all worth nothing 10 minutes into the flight. If men can get off the planet and into space on a "man-rated" Delta IV or Atlas V, then no power to America's ingenuity for trying it. "Man-Rating" Titans, Deltas, and Atlas rockets means "slowing them down" to make the ride and g-forces survivable. It can be done.

I am strongly against three things Dr. Aldrin recently suggested publically - 1) keeping the Shuttle flying until 2015 and 2) creating a Shuttle-like piggyback craft for the next manned trip to space. So far as the first objection, I have seen all 3 surviving Shuttles up close and would be very pleased if all 3 can survive the remaining missions through 2010. They are really showing their age. The development of both ARES and ORION do in fact use legacy "COTS" approaches to space, by keeping the foam-covered tanks and the approach to lift-stage solid rocket boosters. Anyone with any good understanding of what flight dynamics are for the first 25-30 miles in altitude would understand why solid-rocket boosters make incredible sense. The Shuttle's dangers are well known after both the Challenger and Columbia accidents, and some famous astronauts with names like Sally Ride, Story Musgrave, and even John Young have said that knowing what they know now, they would never ride the Shuttle in its current configuration with the known inherent safety flaws. The biggest two flaws in the Shuttle are 1) falling foam in a line of trajectory into the crew compartment or vehicle, and 2) no escape mechanism. Both of these are solved by the Orion/ARES Constellation but not both of these problems are solved by the piggy-back alternatives that have made themselves famous over the last year.

I wish America all success with the X-37B spaceplane designed by NASA and operated by the Air Force and maker Boeing - this is the Shuttle design that America would design today - knowing what we know now. But spaceplanes are only good for Earth orbit, due to thermal limitations encountered when approaching the atmosphere from higher distances - like from the Moon.

I am always disturbed by the cost it takes to get into space, and one needs not take long to discover that the cost is not necessarily in getting up there, but in the expensive installations, civil servants at NASA, and myriad of layers and layers of contractors. After all, NASA has rarely been a space program so much as it has been a jobs program. Perhaps in today's economy, that's exactly what we need, but with China and others ready to go on a cheaper budget with an eye on space more than jobs, we really need to take a serious self-assessment as a nation on where we want to go from here.

I mentioned that there were three things that Dr. Aldrin proposed, but only mentioned two. The third is his idea that man should skip the Moon as a manned target based on the grounds of 'been there, done that,' and go straight to Mars, and never send anyone back. He may be right, because sometimes it is not always necessary to go through every interviening planetary body on the way to the Mars. The International Space Station has been instrumental in proving that humans can endure long-duration space-flights, but an artificial gravity "anchor" deployed from a spacecraft by tether would be great in creating the spin needed to create artificial gravity in space, and the accompanying reduction in bone mass loss over time.

While I think that sending people to Mars without a return is as silly as telling people to go to war without an exit strategy, my main complaint with Dr. Aldrin's suggestion that we skip the Moon is that we just don't know yet what the LRO / LCROSS missions will yeild during this year. The vehicles have just launched, and people at NASA tell me it is very likely that LRO will have images of the Apollo Lunar Landing site - as it is today - back to us in time for the celebrated 40th Anniversary. Between LRO and LCROSS, we may learn more about the Moon than we did in all of the Apollo missions combined - very few (only the last few, actually) had trained scientists, and not Astronauts who got there because of test pilot and fighter pilot experience. Only the very last mission had a trained geologist. While I give Dr. Aldrin all the credit in the world for his expertise in orbital mechanics - which is how he got that job, he can't predict now what LRO / LCROSS will yeild in the form of scientific discovery, and it is not fair for him to predict the outcome before the missions truly begin their work.

If in fact it is proven that a manned exploration to Mars is no more exciting than a manned visit to Saudi Arabia's sand dunes or Antarctica's barren wilderness, then I agree that we should probably skip the Moon and move our priorities to a Mars landing - and a return trip as well. I have no doubt that in centuries to come, people will call domed cities on Mars home, and just when it seems feasable to try the expensive project to "terraform" the place we'll abandon it in lieu of moving out to planets in other star systems. But no matter how far we go, we should never preclude the possibility of a ride home.

I recall NASA saying that The Constellation system, which includes the Ares rocket and Orion crew module would not have cost overruns or delays because it was not using new state of the art technology but ONLY already proven technology, mostly off-the-shelf.

Now I see a proposal to finally built the cargo only version of the Shuttle and write off the billions already spent on The Constellation system.

Well, why not go further back and use the Saturn family of launchers, Saturn 1B for passengers to the station and Saturn 5 for cargo and the moon. And either the Russian design capsule (Which the Chinese brought the designs for, and used for their men into orbit flights)or build more Apollo capsules. One of the Skylab missions almost needed a rescue flight because their Apollo return capsule had a steering fuel leak, the rescue Apollo on stand-by was reconfigured to carry 5 astronauts, 2 up, 5 down. The Apollo taking crew to Skylab, acting as life boat, then for crew return, had a 80 day at least shelf life in orbit, and was able to easily rendezvous and dock with Skylab. with some updating, it could easily do what the Orion crew module is supposed to do one day. BUT Apollo did have one issue, it had to splash down on the sea, and so it became too costly to have the USA Navy station ships in all the oceans, but with today's navigation computers, it would not be hard to splash down Apollo just off shore from the Kennedy Space Flight Centre, and have the crew retrieved by the two ships designed to retrieve the Shuttles SRBs

True, the Saturn is very old, but imagine how cheap it would be to mass produce copies, using today's manufacturing technology.

Woops, but NASA stuffed up there, it destroyed all the jigs and blue prints for Saturn way back just after the end of the Apollo/Skylab program, while it was designing and building the Shuttle, because it was worried that due to Shuttle delays and cost overruns it would be ORDERED to cancel the Shuttle and revert to Apollo hardware.

Today, July 2009, due to delays and cost overruns on the The Constellation system, which includes the Ares rocket and Orion crew module, it may be reverting back to Shuttle hardware

I note above I repeat myself a few times, but NASA seems to keep repeating its false promises and repeats the same mistakes as always.

The Chinese will be first back to the moon, (NASA is holding the Russians back from the moon, because of needing passengers services to the Station) and its a toss up between the Russians (whom will give up on servicing the Station the first chance they get) and the Chinese for first to Mars, the Chinese taking extreme risks (to their crews) to get there, and the Russians having years of experience in long duration Mir.

And NASA has become too much like the USA Defence Department developing a new bomber or fighter, studying the hell out of proposals for 20 years and (not OR) more, to find the cheapest, most-cost-effective safest hardware, then cancelling because development costs were too high.

You can blame the politicians too, for expecting too much, for too little funding. The trans USA railways, were just built, nobody studied costs for years before hand, no accountants in charge in those days.

Maybe the USA should give 75% of its manned space flight tax payer funded budget to the Russians to design and build their ideas, then NASA just buys tickets on the next Russian space liner to the moon, for its own astronauts. No doubt the Russians will take cargo to the moon for NASA as well. NASA wont be first, but at least it will have the second moon base. Certainly it would cost less than if NASA did it all in-house.

Think about it, without the Russians providing passengers services to The Station from day one, which includes life-boat capability from when it was first manned 24/7, no way would the Station have been viable, even while The Shuttle is still flying. And the Russians could have built The Station themselves WITHOUT a shuttle, using expendable launchers in the same way they put Mir up.

It seems the USA is fast becoming a 3rd world partner in space flight.

Well, more than ever money is the main concern.

Maybe they should start thinking practicaly. Like Soviets did back during space race. They figured out that they can't make one rocket strong enough to shoot the spacecraft directly to the Moon so they decided to launch crew and craft separately and merge it in orbit. They didn't make the stable enough rocket for that task either and lost the race, but now we have ISS, and regular flights there.

Why not thing like this:
- launch spacecraft that will be used to fly to the moon once into the orbit and dock it to the ISS, old apollo command module and LEM would do just fine, just update it and refine it. You don't even need return capsule, because crew and samples would go back with soyuz like capsules that are already in use.
- launch crew, supplies, fuel and equipement in a way that is already in use with progres/julles verne supply ships and soyuz like capsules.
- once in orbit, you could load everything to "moon shuttle" go there, return back and park it there for next trip.

most of things you need is already in use, and you don't need more powerfull rockets than they are already used.

I like Old.Timer's comment. Unfortunately, I know that even if we tried the Saturn Program, it will be from scratch. None of the engineers are the same. All homegrown engineers moved on or retired. We are left with many engineers that don't think on their feet. It’s all iPod, blackberries and meetings. I have, so far, not run into another Mechanical Engineer that knows how to run a lathe. So practical applications are out the window, and we have to rely on the oldest experts in the field. Knowing this and seeing the trend to 3D modeling. I would say that this will take a while.

There are many other solutions, one is similar to the Xplane, where a plane fitted with rockets to reach orbit. That preserves the gas mileage. In this case, what we need is a lesson learned. We know that saving the engine is very beneficial and the new vehicle only has to get to space. Now that simplifies the design from the shuttle. For example, we could design ram jet engine boosters that will return to earth after a launch with the wing portion (no pilot). It can just drop to earth in a parachute with no fancy landing. Cargo portion will stay in space where even the hull can be disassembled in space and reused. For me, cargo is cargo. In airliners, the cargo bays are not pressurized. If need be, then they will have their own little pressurized containers and relief valves.

So there are many options and going back to old school may sound nice, but to me old school refers to the engineers. Well, that is not an option.

More and more delays.... soon enough Sir Richard Branson will own the moon.

This is a very inaccurate story and the truth is actually quiet the opposite.

The Ares I booster cannot go any farther then ISS and requires Ares V to go anywhere then low earth orbit.
Technically the Delta IV-H and F9-H are more powerful then Ares I.
Each can lift about 3 and 4 tons more then Ares I respectively.

Now the alternative SDLV Jupiter/Direct or even shuttle-C are different in that the CLV and cargo LV are essentially the same LV.

To perform an Apollo 8 type mission all you need to do is add a Delta IV upper stage to the stack.

To perform a lunar landing on Jupiter/Direct launcher you use two J246s to launch Orion and Altair with their own EDS for an LLO rendezvous.
With SHuttle-c you make use of two shuttle-cs and one delta IV-H

Both setups would have more TLI payload then the 1.5 launch scenario you have with Ares.

They also can double the lunar surface payload so all the doom and gloom is BS.

Hello,

I have just seen a film that I think would really interest you! It is called Moonwalk One-The Director's Cut!

It is an amazing account of the Apollo 11 space mission in which man first walked on the moon! Not only does it capture the scientific accomplishments, but it also serves as an outstanding time capsule of society at the time and their reactions!

Forty years later, it turns out that the original director, Theo Kamecke, has the only pristine copy of the original 35mm film. Never before released to the public for home viewing, the film has been restored to a spectacular high-definition wide screen masterpiece with an all new soundtrack!

Make sure to get your copy in time for the 40th anniversary of man walking on the moon! I got my copy at www.amazon.com, and you can also orider it at ww.co.uk and www.moonwalk.com. This is a great film for students, teachers, enthusiasts, families, and more. No matter your interest, this film will not be a bore!

Best wishes,
Lauren

I believe in using what we got-what we paid SO much for. Restore the shuttles, and launch them, forever in orbit. As exploration continues,it is inevitable that there be more people out there. Shuttles would make excellent rescue vehicles, lasting far longer than they will sitting on the ground doing nothing for all the money spent on them. It is a certainty that space rescue will be needed at some point. If a major accident or failure occurred on ISS, they are done for as is.

I'm looking at my new pop mech(I get 'em both) and checking out their new spacesuit design. Good and sensible, but I'd like to ask if they've considered an emergency in the arm-based light arrest cable that could be aimed and fired, and maybe based in the arm of both suit modules? Then for whatever they figure would be most effective, electromagnet or small hook, or some kind of gas activated stickytack? I know I'd feel just a tiny bit less terrified on EVA with a redundant backup to whatever the plan is now, and it wouldn't take much room or weigh much.

Continuing on that idea, seems like an autofire setup could be employed so that the suit cable could be fired via computer/remote, in the case of injury; or simply by proximity sensor.

Now for This thread. Couldn't we use the ISS to go to the moon, letting it take it's own sweet time to get there, and just slide right on into orbit, for the price of a little gas and a resupply when our crew finally gets to go, and get the lunar project off on a serious running start? These people running NASA and the megarich industrialists that own Them do not seem to get after all these years, lives, and money that we do not mind the total cost if they can just do the things REALLY possible with what they have to work with. They still get their lunar mission cash, WE get to get Some hard value out of the ISS, which, if all is still well, we could leave there as material,components, or Heaven forbid, an Open Source learning platform. Or simply bring it slowly home to do more good in OUR interplanetary endeavors.

1) NASA needs to be stripped, Auctioned and decommissioned due to their constant blundering. I read a story last year about how they were working on the same multi-billion dollar project in two places and didn't know it. They spent twice the amount of money and didn't EVEN KNOW IT. THEY SUCK.

2)Trips to space need to stop for five years for new research and development. Rocket power? COME ON! We have been using the same technology for 2000 years! It's time for an UPGRADE!!!

3) Dropping Billions of dollars on Rockets that wont be used, space stations that wont be open for more than a few (completed) years would make any taxpayer cry.

4) The science is there folks. There are scientists whose work would propel us to Mars in HOURS not months. But do they get the funding? NO! Why give progressive science money when you can set billions of dollars on fire with your new Ares Rocket?

Our space program in on the edge of a knife. If we don't get serious its going to silently kill this country and itself.

One more thing. I see a couple of seemingly very knowledgeable guys saying that the ISS can't make high orbit. That is not really true, is it? Isn't it true that the ISS already has 2/3s of the momentum needed where it is flying now? And that 1 straight fuel supply launch-Russia, and 1 crew-equipment launch-US, are all that are keeping us from the moon TODAY? So we do not set space speed records getting there or back, who cares? The fact is we CAN do this with the things we have, creative planning and management permitting. As my wife just said, this is not about a race, it is about getting serious about getting the absolute most from All of Our effort, equipment, money, and Friends in China, Japan, Iran, India, the Marshall Islands, Guyana, Australia and E.U. Our desired ends may be somewhat different, but in this second round of baby steps; Earth's interests appear to be the same all over.

seatellite

I understand your frustration, I think, but could you site some of your reasons for me? Mainly about the NASA funding story and scientists who can get a man to mars in a matter of hours. I'm just curious.

Why is the Obama addministration draging there feet? The annser is simple,The US is financed to the hilt 2trillion plus.Its like wanting to install a swimming pool when your having trouble paying the morgage.Same reason Apolo ended. I also beleave the space programe will strugel for manny many years.Do Ameracians realy care? Short annser no.After the moon landing most Ameracians lost intrest.Just like the Simsons Homer said"Space shuttle goes up space shuttle goes down BORING"Just like Hommer space became exiting when he was chosen to go.

Really what they need to do is Scrap Ares and switch the shuttle-C or Direct.
Also maybe even scrap Orion and have Dragon and possibly Dreamchaser take over it's mission as well.
OSC can modify Cyngus for unmanned cargo transport.
Other stupidity adapting flight avionics from a jetliner to a spacecraft.
It would be easier and cheaper to adapt the ATV's,Cynus's or Dragon's avionics for the task.
For this to happen a lot of management at NASA HQ is going have to get the boot.
They are the problem not the budget the ESA operates ona fraction of the budget.
A good example of waste at NASA is Ares I it's just another 24T LV.
There will be three LV larger then 24T with plenty of flight history to choose from by 2014.
The Detla IV-H, Atlas V heavy aka Atlas phase II,and Falcon 9-H.
They all have a larger payload then Ares I.

With the problems dealing with the problem of Global Warming, shrinking oil reserves, the war against terror, the near US economic collapse from under and improperly regulated banks, commodity traders and mortgage brokers, the US cannot afford to go back to the Moon or to Mars in the next 500 years. The US President should order NASA to drop Bush's suggestion that the US go back to the Moon. The US President should direct NASA to invest public tax dollars into research to build a launch system based upon renewable energy resources that do not pollute the air and water like today's solid fuel rockets. We need a space based system that can detect 100% of the items in space that threatens Earth. NASA needs to build and test machines that can be sent into space to change the orbit of objects that threaten life on Earth.

i like what you say, ellenbetty. i would like to see a micrometeoroid proof space garage, so we could park the shuttles in orbit for future need, say finding some compound that will bond with carbon in the atmosphere that NASA could put up? C'mon NASA...we could Really Use some hard value back right now...For your own children if not for mine.

Let's get NASA out of the low-earth "NASCAR" orbit(turn-left-turn-left") rut and move on to the moon, Mars and beyond.

The current Ares I and Ares V rockets are the way to go in spite of what some conspiracy theorists are claiming about technical shortcomings.

Jim McDade
"Space exploration is not an option. It is a necessity."

The current state of our rocketry is remarkably poor. Did you know that the plans for the most powerful rocket we ever made, the Saturn V, were accidentally thrown away by NASA? So if we want to make powerful rockets again, we have to design them again too!

PeteDSL Chula Vista
The space shuttle was inadequate for the purpose of having a reuse-able air to orbit aircraft taking off from a standard runway with standard cargo bays similar in manner to modern cargo sea-ships.
One proposed and prototyped project was an nuclear powered aircraft. It worked. It was cancelled by fearful politicians and their voting supporters.
Another proposed was a ground powered laser power heat transfer device using lasers to carry the heating power to the aircraft from special laser plants on or near the airports.
Another proposed project was earth to orbit elevators running on buckyball carbon nanotube cables.
The easiest to accomplish would be the nuclear aircraft.
Building complex projects in orbit without the space shuttle described in paragraph one will be extra costly, complicated and dangerous.
Failure to properly exploit orbital advantages will close off one avenue for strengthening our economy and moving environmentally safe production factories back under US control.

ok we made it ther once why can't we go back? because obama and bush have sent this country into a downword spiral of oweing differn't country's money! so after we get the country's payed then they'll make there own space station and rockets! so we'll be poor and have no money when china will be rich and will have all the moneys! D:

The only real bottom line, and this goes for every single person in every nation of the planet, is that we either colonize another planet or two, or eventually we go extinct or back to the stone age.

To say we can't afford it is to say that we should just give up and accept that we are going to go back to the stone age or cease to exist. If we want the species to continue, at some point we have to afford it. Either one of these are valid choices - I just think we should really choose one, consiously (as opposed to having a choice being made for us because we are caught with our pants down arguing over who's religion is really the correct religion).

I like the one way mars idea - but slightly modified. We send out a sizable crew and enough raw materials and equipment for them to settle in - and construct a much larger permanent facility with a massive greenhouse at its center over say the next ten years.

Then we send an even larger crew of people who are meaning to stay as mankind's safeguard against destruction.

Rodney

Unfortunately for some,The grid scientist with different news,and definitely different views,and a completely different degree than you.Says this: WE do not need to go to the moon,its purpose is to slow this planets spin speed.
It takes 4 to 8 days to travel to Mars in just a 20 man Starship,NASA just does not get a star chart, that would be a felony.
Starships come in to the bottom of the planet and exit through the the top of the planet to flow with the energetic lines that connect and flow ,universe to universe,galaxy to galaxy.
When NASA and the military disturb the frequency rings at thew 48 and 96 thousand level,they help let out our gases.( Ozone release also) We grid scientists would stop NASA's program and rely on starships to complete necessary missions and stop the huge monetary drain they create,(It take about 5000 dollars worth of lifter fuel to go to Mars and back. THINK ABOUT IT!!!

how can they think of cannceling we need back on the moon
mabey they could use the jupiter system till they get constelation running

I think robots are much better suited to space travel and operation than humans. There really isn't anywhere in our immediate grasps that I would want to go in space anyway. Let the machines do the work and when we have the technological capability to do more than strap a rocket to our butts and take a likely one way trip to a hell hole with nothing to breath or eat we can start taking trips beyond our comfortable little planet. I don't see why we can't use robots to do the research required to develop our systems or gather resources from our solar system or explore places we just aren't capable. I do think we should be putting a lot more money into this type of research but I don't think it should be going towards joy rides for the right stuff...

I think NASA needs to spend time developing a viable space plane or something similar. Then, astronauts in LEO could assemble a larger spacecraft for deeper space travel to the moon or mars. Supplies could be lifted more efficiently without human passengers.