How We'll Get Back to the Moon...
Before the end of the next decade, NASA astronauts will again explore the surface of the moon. And this time, we're going to stay, building outposts and paving the way for eventual journeys to Mars and beyond. There are echoes of the iconic images of the past, but it won't be your grandfather's moon shot. <b>NOTE: French, German, Italian, and Spanish translations follow...</b>
Comments:
Fascinating - after 36 years of technological progress since Apollo 11, the best<br>thing NASA can come up with is a pumped-up Apollo capsule and a souped-up LM.<br><br>The shuttle was a big leap forward over the manned capsules, and now NASA is<br>jumping backward into the 1970s. I'm an enthusiastic supporter of manned space<br>exploration, but frankly, this is enough to make even *me* question whether to<br>vote for it. But, since the alternative is no exploration at all ...<br><br>NASA has lost all vision of the future; it has to have its forward vision handed<br>to it, and even then it acts lost.<br><br>Terry (astrotrf)<br>
I agree with you that there hasn't been much if any progress. If they really want to go to the moon, why not just dust off the Apollo plans and specs and rebuild it? Why go to the moon at all, we've "been there, done that". Skip it in favor of a direct Mars mission.<br><br>I must disagree with you though that the Space Shuttle is any kind of advance over capsules. It was a compromise of bolder designs, and a failure even before it flew. It has demonstrated a 1/50 chance for a catastrophic accident, which is in the ballpark of assessments done even before the Challenger accident. Yes, it's sexier to land like an airplane on a runway then splash down in the ocean, but why shoot up so much bulk up every time you want to get 7 people in orbit.<br><br>Russia's Soyuz craft have not had an accident since the early days of its development, nearly 40 years ago. Better to put a small craft keeping the vehicle simple, and send the cargo separately in unmanned vehicles.<br><br>NASA has clung to the Shuttle because it keeps their bureaucracy employed. It should have long ago been scrapped in favor of a crew only vehicle. The technology exists, but to get the funding you need to get rid of the Shuttle Bureaucracy.<br><br>And while we're at it, let's cancel the space station too. Like the shuttle, it's a series of design compromises that leave it incapable of any scientific advances. How many research papers have been written based on science from the space station compared to Hubble, Spitzer, Cassini, all the stuff orbiting Mars, etc...?<br>
Pardon my novice ignorance here, but I just cannot understand why after over 40 years of being in the "space exploration" business NASA is still using the same old Earth based blast-off method of attempting manned exploration of the solar system. <br><br>There were some viable alternative plans in the 60's on the drawing boards for establishing better launching platforms for manned exploration vehicles, not requiring huge amounts of energy/fuel & hardware consumption just to get free of the Earth's atmosphere. NASA has gone through several decades and mega billions of $$$ only to be back to square one. Better plans and forms of space exploration do exist on the 'drawing boards' but are not pursued or considered based on political appeal and planning group popularity.<br><br>Admittedly most of these alternative plans were/are long term projects and not the instant mentally orgasmic gratification style of running up into the sky, grabbing a piece of the moon and coming back all exhausted, out of breath and broke! NASA ran up into space and grabbed a piece of the moon instead of walking into space exploration and expanding its capabilities. Now they stand poised to make the same wham bam play again. I'm not impressed, but then who am I but the average middle class American taxpayer who gets to once again foot the bill! <br><br>The Mad One (as a hatter!)<br><br>
Like others have said, the CEV and lander look like Apollo craft for a reason: form follows function. Funny thing is, the Porsche 911 sports car is very similar to the Apollo and CEV. Same basic layout but, over the years incremental and evolutionary change has yielded a completely different car today than its incepetion in the mid 60s. <br><br>Frankly, I don't see the new moon plan as one step backwards. Finally, NASA is serious about implementing the Space Task Group plans of 1969. <br><br>NASA must stretch out the timeline from the 10 years of Apollo to 15 years for the new vehicle for one reason: funding. Like others have said, there is no great mandate from the American public to conduct space exploration. Therefore NASA must continue this project at regular funding levels, not the levels NASA had during the go-go 60s. It is unlikely that the circumstances that brought about the race to the moon will ever exist again, so NASA must conduct space exploration using the small percentage of federal budget it already has.<br><br>I think one way for NASA to have more money for space exploration is to drop the aeronautics part of the organization. NASA should be a space agency only. Aeronautical research should be conducted by the agencies that benefit the most from it: the DoD and the FAA.<br><br>Just my thoughts,<br>Gene DiGennaro<br>Baltimore, Md.
I am very surprised that all comments so far are not questioning manned space exploration in principle. I admit, it is a compelling and seductive thought that some day human beings could walk on the surface of Mars. But is this really the future? <br>Humans are by no means adapted to space flight, robots are. Moreover, human beings have, for ethical reason, to be kept alive at all costs. This means the expenses for manned space missions are astronomical in scale as compared to robotic missions. And the scientific value of manned missions is more than questionable. There is hardly anything, real people can do on Mars, what robots can't. <br><br>I believe NASA's and the Bush Admnistration's reason for the decision to prepare and carry out another manned exploration of the moon and ultimately Mars is not scientific in nature, not even governed by the urge to learn new things about the planetary sytem, but is based first of all on feelings of pride and nationalism.<br><br>I actually think the costs of this project will ultimately be so high that later administrations will most probably cancel it again, having to take the blame on themselves and leaving the glory to the present government. <br>There are, in fact, more urgent things to do in this world than send humans to Mars.<br><br>Don't understand me wrongly, I am not against space exploration at all, I am an enthusiastic amateur astronomer and awed by the universe, but all things have to be done with the right measure. Robotic space missions have a far greater scientific potential than manned space flight, at a fraction of the cost. It is awesome to think what could be done with the money spent for manned missions, if they were used for robotic and other unmanned missions instead.<br><br>I think NASA's decision was a huge mistake and a loss for all who love astronomy and science.<br><br>Heinz
Funding Member
