New manned Moon lander is named "Altair".

Via NASA watch:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20..._to_the_m.html

Pat

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:42:01 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Via NASA watch:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20..._to_the_m.html

Why call a program "Constellation" if the individual parts are named
for constellations? We already have "Orion". "Aquila" (the Eagle, of
which Altair is the brightest star) or "Aquarius" would have been
better names.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

: "Aquila" (the Eagle, of
: which Altair is the brightest star) or "Aquarius" would have been
: better names.

I think "Aquarius" would be a nice nod to Apollo XIII: after
"Aquarius" Mark I's performance, doing everything in the mission except
land, it a Mark II deserves a chance to land.

*Rich*


--
Richard F. Drushel, Ph.D. | "They fell: for Heaven to them no hope
Instructor and Executive Officer | imparts / Who hear not for the beating
Department of Biology, CWRU | of their hearts."
Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7080 U.S.A. | -- Edgar Allan Poe, "Al-Aaraaf"

On Dec 14, 6:42 am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Via NASA watch:http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20..._to_the_m.html

Pat

Altair? Why not Apple or Commodore?

:-)

Brian Thorn wrote:
Why call a program "Constellation" if the individual parts are named
for constellations? We already have "Orion". "Aquila" (the Eagle, of
which Altair is the brightest star) or "Aquarius" would have been
better names.


Why are the boosters named after the Greek god of war (Ares), instead of
Aries...which would have been clever, as Orion was the name of the
Pan-Am space clipper, and Aries the name of the spherical Moonship in
the movie "2001".
I'm still suspicious of that Ares name; it's very odd for a civilian
spacecraft, unless the reference is to Mars, the Roman god of war.

Pat

Richard F. Drushel wrote:

I think "Aquarius" would be a nice nod to Apollo XIII: after
"Aquarius" Mark I's performance, doing everything in the mission except
land, it a Mark II deserves a chance to land.


I doubt if NASA is going to name or do anything in relation to the
number 13 ever again.
You note that there never was a STS-13...the mission was called STS-41C
instead... but guess which orbiter flew it?
_Challenger_
See, there's no escaping the hoodoo.
The fact that it carried the first _female_ US astronaut, and after the
STS-13 mission carried _two_ female astronauts on a mission for the
first time, shows that NASA was just asking for it.
Why didn't they break a mirror over its nose, put a open umbrella in the
crew compartment, and shove a dead albatross up each of its engines to
really see just how much they could **** off The Powers That Be?
The bad joss was on it, and there was no escaping its fate. ;-)

Pat

Pat Flannery writes:

I'm still suspicious of that Ares name; it's very odd for a civilian
spacecraft, unless the reference is to Mars, the Roman god of war.

I still have the suspicion that the DoD had some spiffy ideas what to do
with a launcher capable of 60t of payload and this was the sole reason
for Bush to talk of going to the Moon and Mars...


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On Dec 13, 8:23 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:


I'm still suspicious of that Ares name; it's very odd for a civilian
spacecraft, unless the reference is to Mars, the Roman god of war.

Let's see....its butt ugly and emits foul-smelling gasses. It was
named by a dyslexic Brit.

John Halpenny

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 03:35:49 +0100, Jochem Huhmann
wrote:


I'm still suspicious of that Ares name; it's very odd for a civilian
spacecraft, unless the reference is to Mars, the Roman god of war.

I still have the suspicion that the DoD had some spiffy ideas what to do
with a launcher capable of 60t of payload and this was the sole reason
for Bush to talk of going to the Moon and Mars...

If that were the case, why bother with Ares I (a vehicle in the same
class as the EELVs, but not nearly as versatile) when they only want
the Ares V?

Brian

On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 19:38:28 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

I think "Aquarius" would be a nice nod to Apollo XIII: after
"Aquarius" Mark I's performance, doing everything in the mission except
land, it a Mark II deserves a chance to land.


I doubt if NASA is going to name or do anything in relation to the
number 13 ever again.

Why? They *loved* the publicity Ron Howard's movie gave them. All they
had to do was announce, "we're naming it after the LEM that went above
and beyond specs to save the crew of Apollo 13 when it mothership
"Odyssey" went kaput.)

Now, "Odyssey" better hadn't darken anyone's door again anytime soon.
I'm still suspicious of SeaLaunch, and look what happened to that ship
on "Deep Space Nine"... :-)

And of course, that pipedream schedule that NASA released a while back
showed the first landing being Orion 13.

You note that there never was a STS-13...the mission was called STS-41C
instead... but guess which orbiter flew it?

But the actual 13th flight was made by Discovery.

Brian