President Bush to announce manned trip to Moon, Mars (merged) (1 Viewer)

[BrianShort]

I would hope that any craft they build would be able to land entirely on the moon, and not leave some poor SOB in orbit, like Apollo.

 

[Jack Briggs]

The entire approach will be different from Project Apollo. Its goals -- beating the Russians -- were different. Different mission, different spacecraft. Reusability. Infrastructure. Permanence.

 

[Lance Nichols]

Damn, I might just have to say YAY! I hope that some serious push is put behind this statement. I have been personally advocating for a return to Luna for as long as I remember.

Now, I really have to put my effort behind the weight loss program. I want a room with a view!

Seriously, this would be great if it really does happen. The real estate on Luna is so valuable just scientifically, I don't know why we have been absent so long.

Don't know what to think about possible plans to send orbiters to Mars. If you are going to shoulder the costs for a manned mission to Mars, staying in orbit won't lessen the costs much. In terms of historical parallels, it would be like Eric the Red crossing the Atlantic, seeing Canada, doing a little fishing, then turning back with out actually setting foot in North America.

 

[Gerald LaFrance]

Sounds GREAT But they say the moon is always being struck by meteors and such, If they build it would the odds be high or low from the structure gettind struck by a meteor??

I would like to see such a project and would be there for the first launch would just love to HEAR & SEE that!!

 

[Jack Briggs]

Gerald, most of the meteoric, asteroidal bombardment occurred early in the Solar System's life, before the Sun blew away most of the cosmic debris of the system's formation. Had Earth never possessed a thick atmosphere with weather and the erosion it brings along, it would be every bit as pockmarked by impact craters as the Moon. In fact, the Moon was formed by Earth's collision with a Mars-sized planet.

One would be no safer from meteoric impact on Earth than one would be on the Moon -- that is, if the object were large enough to survive the friction caused by Earth's atmosphere. Earth is, in fact, a larger target for impact, given its much larger surface area.

 

[Gerald LaFrance]

THNX Jack!!

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

I agree with those who say that we could launch a pot.

 

[Andrew Testa]

Jack, I had a really long post with my speculation about the plan, but it just dropped into the bit bucket. So you'll have to settle for the short form:

We haven't heard a peep yet other than what was released to the press. The early announcement is likely designed to take advantage of the surge in public attention on the Mars rovers. We know it will NOT be a scaled up Apollo. One rumor I heard is a plan to use the moon as the launch point for unmanned probes. This can only be cost effective in the long run if there is a mining and processing facilty on the moon to extract the elements, produce fuel, and deliver it to a probe waiting in orbit. That implies a far reaching and permanent lunar infrastructure.

The news reports have mentioned an early cutoff on ISS contruction and retirement of the orbiter fleet after the last assembly mission. This is probably for the best. The new infrastructure will likely depend on large expendables for cargo and the small OSP for crews. A robotic vehicle for ISS resupply is already being proposed, so the orbiters will no longer be required.

Other than the probe rumor, I know as much as you. But everyone should be aware that NASA has been designing and planning for a lunar outpost for quite a long time. My wife worked on the regolith mining problem over 12 years ago. So NASA probably has a good story worked up. Whether it can be achieved is altogether another story. Many people here have doubts that we could ever do this kind of project with the management system entrenched at NASA now. ISS began with lofty goals and a well reasoned engineering plan that failed to survive contact with the enemy (Congress and reality). A lunar outpost will be a much harder engineering feat than ISS.

Gerald,

While meteoroid impacts could occur, the most prevalent hazard on the moon and on Mars is cosmic radiation. Most base plans call for burying the habitation modules under a mound of soil as an absorption shield.

Jack,

Back to the OSP capsule concept: many of the design ideas for the OSP have changed radically recently due to input from the crew office. When the requirements were being reviewed, the crew took the position that the OSP should not have a galley, bathroom, or any ammenity that isn't required for a trip of a few hours. They want a bare bones vehicle, which makes a lot of sense. Several of the proposed designs have all but eliminated wings, even if they re-enter in a forward facing configuration (minimal lifting body). Also off most drawing boards are landing gear, opting for parachute landing and skid deployment. No wings or landing gear means a huge reduction in weight. These all will result in a lower cost vehicle that's easier to fabricate and operate. Good news on all fronts.

Other than this, all I can do is wait with the rest of you. I'll try to post a "read between the lines" analysis of the plan after the speech on Wednesday.

Andy

 

[Chris]

Realize also, that a development on the moon is one of the basic requirements that will be needed for a lot of next-generation sciences. Right now, in earth based gravity, it is becoming more and more difficult even within clean rooms, to work with metals at such a fine degree to create next generation computer designs. Intel, Inc. along with Sun, AMD, and others have all postulated that in the end, low gravity and airless work environments will be important toward continued development.. And computer work isn't alone; for those that like the ideas of astronomy, we have a much better launching point and view point from the moon then the earth.

And, if you have reason to believe that meteors, asteroids, etc. may pose any risk toward the earth, our best chance to detect and develop a game plan for those events is from the moon, not the earth.

China has already announced that within 10 years they hope to have a working industrial base on the moon; they see the realities of it, if only from an R&D standpoint. It's about time we think about it too, to look longterm for the health of our economy and the impact science has on it.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Andrew:

You know something? Your description of a parafoil- and skid-equipped OSP is making the vehicle sound more and more like the scrapped Crew Return Vehicle of recent yesteryear! I am very intrigued by what you say about crew-office input. Are there any drawings or artist's conceptions of these most recent ideas that can be posted? Also, looking forward to your read-between-the-lines analysis.

Is the collective morale at JSC being bouyed by all this talk coming out of the White House?

JB

 

[Steve Christou]

Lyndon Johnson: A pot?
Von Braun: A pod, a.. a capsule. Now, we would be in full control of zis pod. It vill go up like a cannonball, and come down like, uh, a cannonball, splashing down into ze water, the ocean, vith a parachute to spare the life of the specimen inside.
Lyndon Johnson: Spaceman!?
Von Braun: SPE-CI-MEN!
Lyndon Johnson: Well, what kind of spe-ci-men?
Von Braun: A tough one. Responsive to orders. I had in mind a jimp.
Lyndon Johnson: JIMP? Well what the HELL is a jimp??
Von Braun: A jimp! A-a-a jimpanzee, Senator! An ape!

[Men on Mars! Woohoo! Women on Venus! Yay!!]

 

[Steve_Tk]

I wonder what future president will cancel this if it actually goes through...

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

At least Christou's awake.

But the real problem is...no bucks....no Buck Rodgers.

 

[Adam Barratt]

Ten dollars say we'll see fake ebay auctions for the space shuttles within days of the announcement.

Adam

 

[Eric_L]

do they come in blue?

 

[Andrew Testa]

Jack,

I've seen some designs and mission profile drawings but I can't find them right now. I think that this link to Space.com from November has artist drawings of Lockheed-Martin's and Boeing's concepts. You'll note Boeing is hedging their bets with both a winged and capsule concept, while LM is ging for the minimalist lifting body idea.

Here's the Lockheed idea in orbit:



Note the rear is a standard module with a berthing mechanism at the rear. This is jettisoned for reentry:



And this is Boeing's capsule in orbital config:



If these images are too large please let me know and I'll change the img tag to url to make a link to the drawings rather than show them inline.

There was one concept that looked very much like the CRV but I think that one was dropped. But you're right, the CRV design looks like it would have fit the bill if it hadn't been cancelled.

As far as morale at JSC, it ranges from cautious optimism (moi) to cynical rejection of any notion that we can pee without wetting our own pants, let alone go to the moon. So I'd say there isn't much of a morale boost. Too many people here have been burned by big promises, inept management, and cancelled projects. Much of the return to flight activity is showing that the old NASA hasn't gone anywhere. Engineering decisions are being rushed or discarded based on flight timeline that is based on "fly as soon as possible" rather than find the best fix and not fly until it's ready. So no, there's not much change in morale. I hope that something good will come out of this. I'll have to wait and see what happens. I'll be sure to let you know what I think after the speech and after NASA tells us what it's planning.

I know Ray's out there somewhere. I'd like his opinion. If he doesn't post soon I'll send him an email and prod him. He'd know more about what's going around in the operations world.

Andy

 

[BrianShort]

So the rumor is the speech will be given on Wednesday, but does anyone know an approximate time that the speech would be given, based on the typical time Bush would make big policy speeches?

Brian

 

[Jack Briggs]

Thanks, Andrew. The Boeing design I've seen posted here and there, and I believe I've seen an image of the Lockheed lifting-body design.

And I can well understand the entrenched cynicism at JSC. We all remember the elder Bush's space initiative from 1989, which was DOA at Congress because of NASA having appended a $400 billion pricetag and a 30-year timeline to it.

In addition, the aborted X-33/X-34 spaceplane debacle didn't help (which itself was preceded by the "National Aerospace Plane" project, also aborted).

So many starts, so many abrupt stops. No wonder so few people are holding their breaths over this one.

At least this new set of proposals seems grounded in fiscal reality. Too, as one commentator was saying last Friday evening on PBS's Wall Street Week, the public is in the mood for something like this now. This is important.

I have a bet: The speech will be couched in terms of honoring the legacy of the STS-107 seven. "So they will not have died in vain." I just bet you the speech will be high on the emotional content, with more than a dash of drama about laying the groundwork for a stronger, technologically superior U.S. that must face the challenges of the 21st century. That sort of thing.

I am hopeful in ways I haven't been in a long time.

But I am troubled by what you report about the return-to-flight thinking. It's those same rushed timelines that led to STS-51L, and it's the same cavalier thinking that caused higher-ups at HQ and JSC to look the other way despite those grainy (but now improved) images of the pieces of foam striking the Orbiter's wing.

Something that many here seem to be missing, one of the most significant pieces of news emerging from what is known about the forthcoming policy announcement: If true, then the Space Shuttle will remain operational for, at best, about four or five more years. Then, before the CEV begins making its first manned flights, the U.S. will rely solely on Soyuz spacecraft for access to the ISS. It will be sort of similar to the hiatus of 1975-81, only this time there will be a grand payoff.

If it all goes through.

Brian, the president usually makes these sorts of speeches in the a.m. He is scheduled to appear at NASA HQ. I imagine your only hope of seeing it live would be on CSPAN. Maybe CNN, but I doubt it.

 

[David McGough]

POLITICAL COMMENT REMOVED BY ADMIN.

 

[BrianShort]

Jack: There seems to have been enough it the news already about this pending announcement that I would be surprised if it wasn't carried by all of the cable news stations, and maybe even a network.

Brian