A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 19th 05, 09:31 PM
AA Institute
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

NASA today unveiled an ambitious blueprint for returning American
astronauts to the moon by 2018 using new rockets based on shuttle
propulsion technology and a new reusable crew vehicle Administrator
Mike Griffin described as "Apollo on steroids."

Full story:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/19exploration/

AA
------------------------------=AD=AD-----------------------------
http://www.publishedauthors.net/aa_spaceagent/
"The ultimate dream adventure awaiting humanity..."
------------------------------=AD=AD-----------------------------

  #2  
Old September 19th 05, 10:44 PM
Joe Strout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com,
"AA Institute" wrote:

NASA today unveiled an ambitious blueprint


Well, I guess opinions on that may vary.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
  #3  
Old September 19th 05, 10:47 PM
Alex Terrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Joe Strout wrote:
In article .com,
"AA Institute" wrote:

NASA today unveiled an ambitious blueprint


Well, I guess opinions on that may vary.

I thought I was seeing the history channel - except there was no
Kennedy to say by the end of decade - rather, we'll put some men on the
moon, when we get round to it.

With no plans for a moonbase, I'm struggling to see the point of all
this. And the architecture is about 50% more expensive than it ought to
be.

  #4  
Old September 19th 05, 10:58 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The bottom line is : let s give back to NASA in 2018 the capabilities
it had in 1972.

  #5  
Old September 19th 05, 10:58 PM
Rene Altena
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 19 Sep 2005 14:47:27 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Alex
Terrell" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

NASA today unveiled an ambitious blueprint

Well, I guess opinions on that may vary.

I thought I was seeing the history channel - except there was no
Kennedy to say by the end of decade - rather, we'll put some men on the
moon, when we get round to it.

With no plans for a moonbase, I'm struggling to see the point of all
this. And the architecture is about 50% more expensive than it ought to
be.


OK, is anyone other than NASA fanboys here actually excited about this
plan?


I wonder why it would take until 2018 to get somebody up there. With this
technology (the first rocket looks more like a Saturn rocket and the other
one more like an Ariane 5 !) it should not take that long!

Rene


  #6  
Old September 19th 05, 11:08 PM
Ed Kyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 19 Sep 2005 14:47:27 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Alex
Terrell" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

NASA today unveiled an ambitious blueprint

Well, I guess opinions on that may vary.

I thought I was seeing the history channel - except there was no
Kennedy to say by the end of decade - rather, we'll put some men on the
moon, when we get round to it.

With no plans for a moonbase, I'm struggling to see the point of all
this. And the architecture is about 50% more expensive than it ought to
be.


OK, is anyone other than NASA fanboys here actually excited about this
plan?


I think it provides a good roadmap for NASA to follow for
the next how-ever-many years. It is a great improvement
to the space shuttle era NASA framework.

This is a plan that could very well, over time, lead to a
smaller, more focused NASA. It is a plan that produces
something useful in the near-term - the CEV and CLV tools
that will replace shuttle and could by themselves, in
concert with commercial launch services and international
space station partners, serve as the framework for a long-
term human space program. It also lays out longer term
plans and goals (the Moon, Mars maybe but not probably) that
could happen, or not, depending on national priorities down
the road.

- Ed Kyle

  #8  
Old September 19th 05, 11:21 PM
Brian Thorn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:58:52 +0200, "Rene Altena"
wrote:


I wonder why it would take until 2018 to get somebody up there.


Because for the next five years, the lion's share of the NASA manned
spaceflight budget is going to Shuttle and Station, and for five years
after that, a smaller, but still large chunk goes to Station alone.
Only after 2015 do we get out of the Shuttle/Station funding black
hole.

Brian
  #9  
Old September 19th 05, 11:26 PM
Alex Terrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Ed Kyle wrote:
I think it provides a good roadmap for NASA to follow for
the next how-ever-many years. It is a great improvement
to the space shuttle era NASA framework.


In short, it's not as disastrous as the previuos (Shuttle) strategy.

This is a plan that could very well, over time, lead to a
smaller, more focused NASA. It is a plan that produces
something useful in the near-term - the CEV and CLV tools
that will replace shuttle and could by themselves, in
concert with commercial launch services and international
space station partners, serve as the framework for a long-
term human space program. It also lays out longer term
plans and goals (the Moon, Mars maybe but not probably) that
could happen, or not, depending on national priorities down
the road.


How are the CLV tools useful in near-term?

Even the CEV is gross overkill in the near term, if it's just going to
fly to ISS. So as well as recreating Apollo, NASA's going to recreate
Soyuz.

  #10  
Old September 19th 05, 11:31 PM
dasun
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well yes I am excited! After 3 decades of inaction and NASA busy work
it finally gets the show on the road - providing the politicians do not
get stuck into it.

Given financial & political realities this is the best we could have
hoped for. See it for what it is - a starting point that gives an
industrial and experience base for grander journeys in the future. As
someone who just remembers Armstrong taking his first step I would love
to have seen a more definitive Mars direction but I am just glad that a
window beyond LEO has finally opened let us hope the politicians do not
close it.

AS for the stick and using shuttle hardware, well why not? At least it
is a known and I have little faith in brand new systems and even
smaller faith in the nascent commercial space industry being able to
deliver on their promises.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 July 4th 05 07:50 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 August 5th 04 01:36 AM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) Nathan Jones Misc 6 July 29th 04 06:14 AM
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) Nathan Jones Astronomy Misc 8 February 4th 04 07:48 PM
The Apollo FAQ (moon landings were faked) Nathan Jones Misc 8 February 4th 04 07:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.