NASA to go back to moon!

WDWScottieBoy

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/cev.html

123120main_docked_330.jpg


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.

This journey begins soon, with development of a new spaceship. Building on the best of Apollo and shuttle technology, NASA's creating a 21st century exploration system that will be affordable, reliable, versatile, and safe.

The centerpiece of this system is a new spacecraft designed to carry four astronauts to and from the moon, support up to six crewmembers on future missions to Mars, and deliver crew and supplies to the International Space Station.

The new crew vehicle will be shaped like an Apollo capsule, but it will be three times larger, allowing four astronauts to travel to the moon at a time.

The new spacecraft has solar panels to provide power, and both the capsule and the lunar lander use liquid methane in their engines. Why methane? NASA is thinking ahead, planning for a day when future astronauts can convert Martian atmospheric resources into methane fuel.

The new ship can be reused up to 10 times. After the craft parachutes to dry land (with a splashdown as a backup option), NASA can easily recover it, replace the heat shield and launch it again.

Coupled with the new lunar lander, the system sends twice as many astronauts to the surface as Apollo, and they can stay longer, with the initial missions lasting four to seven days. And while Apollo was limited to landings along the moon's equator, the new ship carries enough propellant to land anywhere on the moon's surface.

Once a lunar outpost is established, crews could remain on the lunar surface for up to six months. The spacecraft can also operate without a crew in lunar orbit, eliminating the need for one astronaut to stay behind while others explore the surface.

Safe and reliable

The launch system that will get the crew off the ground builds on powerful, reliable shuttle propulsion elements. Astronauts will launch on a rocket made up of a single shuttle solid rocket booster, with a second stage powered by a shuttle main engine.

123027main5_rockets.jpg

Image left: An engineering concept shows NASA's new heavy lift and crew launch vehicles. Click to enlarge. Credit: NASA
+ View Size Compared to Apollo, shuttle

A second, heavy-lift system uses a pair of longer solid rocket boosters and five shuttle main engines to put up to 125 metric tons in orbit -- about one and a half times the weight of a shuttle orbiter. This versatile system will be used to carry cargo and to put the components needed to go to the moon and Mars into orbit. The heavy-lift rocket can be modified to carry crew as well.

Best of all, these launch systems are 10 times safer than the shuttle because of an escape rocket on top of the capsule that can quickly blast the crew away if launch problems develop. There's also little chance of damage from launch vehicle debris, since the capsule sits on top of the rocket.

The Flight Plan

In just five years, the new ship will begin to ferry crew and supplies to the International Space Station. Plans call for as many as six trips to the outpost a year. In the meantime, robotic missions will lay the groundwork for lunar exploration. In 2018, humans will return to the moon. Here's how a mission would unfold:

A heavy-lift rocket blasts off, carrying a lunar lander and a "departure stage" needed to leave Earth's orbit (below left). The crew launches separately (below, center), then docks their capsule with the lander and departure stage and heads for the moon (below, right).

123015main_FP1_516.jpg


Three days later, the crew goes into lunar orbit (below, left). The four astronauts climb into the lander, leaving the capsule to wait for them in orbit. After landing and exploring the surface for seven days, the crew blasts off in a portion of the lander (below, center), docks with the capsule and travels back to Earth. After a de-orbit burn, the service module is jettisoned, exposing the heat shield for the first time in the mission. The parachutes deploy, the heat shield is dropped and the capsule sets down on dry land (below, right).

123016main_FP2_516.jpg


'Into the Cosmos'

With a minimum of two lunar missions per year, momentum will build quickly toward a permanent outpost. Crews will stay longer and learn to exploit the moon's resources, while landers make one way trips to deliver cargo. Eventually, the new system could rotate crews to and from a lunar outpost every six months.

123123main3_lunar.jpg

Image right: Four astronauts could land on the moon in the new lander. Click to enlarge. Artist's concept by John Frassanito and Associates.

Planners are already looking at the lunar south pole as a candidate for an outpost because of concentrations of hydrogen thought to be in the form of water ice, and an abundance of sunlight to provide power.

These plans give NASA a huge head start in getting to Mars. We will already have the heavy-lift system needed to get there, as well as a versatile crew capsule and propulsion systems that can make use of Martian resources. A lunar outpost just three days away from Earth will give us needed practice of "living off the land" away from our home planet, before making the longer trek to Mars.
 

CaptainMichael

Well-Known Member
Sounds wonderfull, interesting, and insanely expensive. Without raising taxes or going further into debt, where will the money come from??? My guess is someone is going to raise taxes. Who will that brave soldier be?
 

wannab@dis

Well-Known Member
SpongeScott said:
How about rebuilding the levee system in New Orleans first?

I don't think I'm the only one, but how about building the city where a levee is not needed? Just seems so practical! :lol:
 

Madison

New Member
SpongeScott said:
How about rebuilding the levee system in New Orleans first?

As a NASA official said when asked a similar question -- nobody has so far called for the dissolution of the Air Force to pay for the reconstruction of New Orleans, so the idea that NASA spending should be curtailed is nonsense. They're both important and vital to our future.

The $104B funding needed for this project is coming entirely from NASA's existing and projected budget. They are asking for no additional funding. If they were given additional funding, do you think it would take them 15 years to manage to go back to the moon -- something we first did 36 years ago?

Vast amounts of technology that we have today to make our lives both convenient and safe have their roots in our space program. If there's not enough money to pay for this and New Orleans -- which is a fallacy -- then I'd much rather they raise my taxes to rebuild New Orleans than they cut funding to NASA.
 

TAC

New Member
And rebuild the city to someplace ABOVE sea level would be a start.

wannab@dis said:
I don't think I'm the only one, but how about building the city where a levee is not needed? Just seems so practical! :lol:
 

SpongeScott

Well-Known Member
TAC said:
And rebuild the city to someplace ABOVE sea level would be a start.
do you honestly think that can be done? Look at how many square miles you would have to level and then fill in. Let's be realistic about this. A levee system is the only thing to protect the city. Put the $$ in levees and not in the pockets of typical crooked Louisiana politicians.
 

TAC

New Member
They could use the debris from MS and AL to fill up the bowl of NO. (j/k!) I know you lived there Scott, so you know firsthand; but to me (as well as many others), spending BILLIONS of taxdollars to rebuild a city that is 12 feet under sea level is tough for people to rationalize.

Or...we could just leave the city flooded and have the equivalent of Venice. :lookaroun

SpongeScott said:
do you honestly think that can be done? Look at how many square miles you would have to level and then fill in. Let's be realistic about this. A levee system is the only thing to protect the city. Put the $$ in levees and not in the pockets of typical crooked Louisiana politicians.
 

Computer Magic

Well-Known Member
Madison said:
The $104B funding needed for this project is coming entirely from NASA's existing and projected budget. They are asking for no additional funding. If they were given additional funding, do you think it would take them 15 years to manage to go back to the moon -- something we first did 36 years ago?
I can see it now.. Advertisement being sold to place on the moon. You look up at the moon and see "Wal-Mart", "Microsoft" and "Hooters" in big neon signs. :lookaroun and Let's not forget the "M" golden arches.
 

xfkirsten

New Member
SpongeScott said:
How about rebuilding the levee system in New Orleans first?

I don't mean to belittle people who had their lives uprooted by Katrina - indeed, my heart goes out to them - but at the same time, life does have to go on. The country is not going to cut all of its other programming to help rebuild. NASA is already under-funded as it is.
/soapbox

Anyways, I think it's wonderful that they're finally taking more action on plans like this. Building a permanent site on the moon is a great stepping stone to larger projects. Hopefully this will not be a victim of further budget cuts!
 

WDWScottieBoy

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Computer Magic said:
I can see it now.. Advertisement being sold to place on the moon. You look up at the moon and see "Wal-Mart", "Microsoft" and "Hooters" in big neon signs. :lookaroun and Let's not forget the "M" golden arches.

:wave:

Marriot (or Hyatt or Hilton, I don't remember which) is already selling hotel rooms/condos on the moon!

And yes, I'm dead serious!
 

WDWScottieBoy

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Also, as far as this not being worth the money, NASA doesn't get much federal money at all, they get a lot of funding themselves.

And like Madison said, it's not something that's happening right now. They're hoping to replace the whole space shuttle missions anyways, so they know what they are doing. They don't just come up with ideas and expect the taxpayers to do this whole thing.
 

wannab@dis

Well-Known Member
xfkirsten said:
I don't mean to belittle people who had their lives uprooted by Katrina - indeed, my heart goes out to them - but at the same time, life does have to go on. The country is not going to cut all of its other programming to help rebuild. NASA is already under-funded as it is.
/soapbox

Anyways, I think it's wonderful that they're finally taking more action on plans like this. Building a permanent site on the moon is a great stepping stone to larger projects. Hopefully this will not be a victim of further budget cuts!

Agreed! I wish that NASA would do a better job of educating people about all the advancements that have been made due to R&D for space exploration and the experiments that have been performed in zero gravity.

There are huge advancements that may be made in medical and other technical sciences through space exploration. It's time that the budget was returned to NASA and bring it back to the glory days of the 50's and 60's.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom