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-----------------------------

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 |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

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.

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

"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

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

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

Not quite. In 1972 NASA could do a moon landing with a single launch.
The new scheme will require two launches of two different, specially
designed rockets.

This should provide good employment opportunities for rocket designers.

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

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.

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.