Return to the Moon

Have you seen the August issue of Astronomy magazine? It details NASA plans to return the US to the moon by 2020, known as the Constellation Program.

American taxpayers were told long ago that investing billions in the space shuttle and international space station were justified partly because they were the stepping stones to our future in space. All future missions to the moon and Mars were to depart from the space station, after sections of the spacecraft were delivered by the shuttle and assembled there. Current plans for future moon missions make no use whatsoever of the space station or the shuttle fleet, due to be retired next year.

The Constellation approach is based on the old Apollo / Saturn 5 concept, with several significant differences. The Altair lunar lander will be launched, unmanned, atop an Ares 5 rocket. The Ares 5 has solid booster stages on both sides of the core vehicle, similar to the space shuttle. The Orion space capsule (command module and service module) will be launched the next day on a much smaller Ares 1 rocket, with 4 astronauts aboard.

In earth orbit, Orion will track down and dock with Altair. The entire crew will transfer to the Altair, turn everything on, and settle in. Then the upper stage of the Ares 5 will fire for its second time, pushing the assembly into a transfer orbit that will reach the moon. It will not matter that Orion's seats will be facing backward because they will not be occupied at that time.

From that point, the mission begins to more closely resemble the old Apollo concept. The upper stage of the booster is discarded, and the service module of Orion fires to drop Orion and Altair into a low lunar orbit. Unlike Apollo, this can be a polar orbit, allowing Altair to reach any point on the moon. Altair descends to the surface and leaves Orion in orbit, unmanned, powered by a pair of solar panels and controlled from earth.

The lower stage of Altair is huge by Apollo standards, capable of transporting impressive amounts of cargo and supplies for a long and complex mission on the lunar surface. Its descent engine and fuel cells share the same fuel source, allowing for a generous supply of electric power.

Like Apollo's lunar module, Altair's upper stage ascends to orbit and docks with Orion before being discarded. Orion's trip home is the same as what we are used to seeing, with the command module making a parachute landing into the ocean after re-entry with a conventional heat shield.

Computer control and automation gives NASA enormous flexibility within the framework of this advanced system architecture. Unmanned Altair vehicles can be sent directly to the moon's surface. Conventional Altairs can be sent for rescue purposes, and cargo-only Altairs can be used to deliver large quantities of supplies or sections of a semi-permanent moonbase. Empty Orion capsules can be delivered to lunar orbit for rescue missions.

The magazine article did not mention that NASA wants Orion and the Ares 1 operational well before Altair is ready in 2020. Orion is to be used to service the international space station by 2014, and a flight test of the Ares 1 rocket is scheduled for later this year.

The article also did not mention anything tangible that we hope to gain from returning to the moon. For the amount of money we are talking about here, the benefits need to be enormous. I will be skeptical until I see details.

 

It's really not that much money, NASA's budget is about $18 billion, how much has Obama authorized to spend since coming to office, a trillion or so? The fact is the amount of technology that comes from NASA constantly can never be underestimated, the original Apollo program if above anything else is what has lead us into the digital age. Going back to the moon in itself is no big deal, we've done it before, more then once, 40 years ago. But going back to the moon is supposed to be the stepping ground to going to Mars.

 

too bad we'll all be dead by 2012

 

Robots can do both jobs as well or better, without human risk. That kind of a project could push robotics technology (including artificial intelligence) harder than it has been pushed so far.

I have, by the way, no objection at all to the Orion portion of the project. We need a less expensive and more reliable way to get into orbit than the space shuttle, in order to fulfill our long-term obligation to service the international space station.

You had better become an astronaut, so you can be out in space then.

 

One issue that I see with that plan is the amount of material that is discarded each mission.

Rendevous in earth orbit can be done with re-useables like the Shuttle and the Station.
From then on it looks like the plan is to discard a booster stage, and the decent stage of the lander, and the re-entry capsule.

Thats a lot of highly skilled manufacturing to be discarding each mission. It's not sustainable, in terms of both materials and money.

Re-usable craft should be used whenever possible.

This time to the moon, NASA has to leave something on the moon.
Something that we won't want to walk away from.

 

Part of the "job" of space exploration is the long term survival of the human race.

In the long run, we need to find a way to live elsewhere than Earth. Just in case something happens to Earth.

Space is not only science and retreiving data, its also about learning how to put people into extra terrestrial environments.

Putting people on the Moon or Mars is an equal goal to getting the data sought.

Humans are a wandering species and Out is the only direction avaliable.

 

I'd choose trying to get to Mars instead of the moon if there was a choice.

 

i think earth needs to get our butts back in space doing something.

i think it's good that there continue to be more players too.

maybe china or india will win the race to mars.

or beyond. to actually set some kind of object that can send back that its there, and maybe tell us a little something about the place, on a planet orbiting another sun.

that would REALLY be something. a maned mars mission in my life time is likely only just bearly possible. but then i'm already 61. which did enable me to watch the live broadcasts as they were happening, of the first moon landing.

when getting out there in space at all was still so new and amazing, that all the major networks carried the nasa feed in real time, pre-empting other programing to do so, and a majority of people actually watched when they did.

 

NBC news reported yesterday that the entire manned program is in jeopardy due to budget constraints. It is not even certain that Orion will be available on time to service the International Space Station. That would leave everything in the hands of the Russians.

 

Yes, I was happy to hear that. Finally, a little fiscal responsibility. Manned space flight should be privatized with little expense to the taxpayer. I would be excited to see what Disney and Marriott, etc., could do if they were allowed to make a profit in space.

 

Shit's taking too long. We need an upgrade fast.

 

I would be happy to see a middle path here, with Orion kept alive and Altair put on the shelf. We need a way to reach the space station that is more cost-effective than the shuttle, which is going away no matter what. Of the two programs, Altair is by far the more expensive.

 

I don't agree with this, unless by the "long run", you mean many thousands of years in the future. And if you're talking that far ahead, all bets are off anyway.

In the foreseeable future, meaning the next few generations or so, I think manned missions beyond Earth orbit are unnecessary and a dead end. Yes, the Apollo missions were cool and an extraordinary achievement, but let's leave it there. I don't see what sending humans to Mars or beyond would accomplish. You can learn almost as much by using robots, at a fraction of the cost.

I say put that money into developing ever-better and ever-smarter computer systems and AI-enhanced robots, and forget the manned missions.

 

I agree. And even for earth orbit missions, privatize it. It's time for a hotel out there.

 

Space travel can never work in a private market at the moment. I'm pretty free market but space exploration just can't, companies work on profit for the moment, not on the prospect of making profit in the course of 60 years

 

Am I the only one who thinks NASAs full of shit?

 

Well, there's not much in it for the taxpayers, either. We'll never lower taxes if we can't kill off totally unnecessary projects like going to the moon.

 

Not to mention totally unnecessary wars.

I do believe that it's ok in principle to undertake projects that have no expectation of immediate monetary return. For instance, I think it's worthwhile to search for extra-terrestrial intelligence, even if the expectations are very low. Also, just as another example, the National Park system doesn't pay its own way, but I think it's worthwhile.

I just don't think another moon landing fits into this category.

 

I read an article which postulates we have and continue to place so much junk in earth orbit that one day, in any effort to explore space, that we will never be able to dodge all this stuff hurling around our planet at many thousands of miles an hour.

It is important to note that even a single paint chip moving at 20,000mph has the equivalent kinetic force of a freight train moving at 60mph.

 

Wouldn't that be a kicker?

It's funny how totally unexpected things can affect the course of history.