SimonShuttle - 19/9/2005 12:42 PMWhere is the permanent manned base on the moon, that's what gets to me.
Chris SF - 19/9/2005 12:54 PMSo lockheed Martin lost?
James Lowe - 19/9/2005 12:58 PMI think some of the reference threads can be posted here to show what we 'hope' will be in the plans.
FransonUK - 19/9/2005 8:47 AMThe SRB is well know for something that once lit, it won't ever stop till it runs out of propellant or it's blown up. Is that safe???
Chris Bergin - 19/9/2005 11:19 AM1 in 2000 failure ratio compared to 1 in 220 on the STS.
Chris Bergin - 19/9/2005 11:27 AMHe just said the CEV can service Hubble
Chris Bergin - 19/9/2005 11:30 AMThat's what I was thinking.He just said it's "Apollo on Steriods" - there's the headline for you
Chris Bergin - 19/9/2005 11:34 AM"We can live with a two year gap between STS and CEV" - Griffin.
braddock - 19/9/2005 4:40 PMNothing about ISS transition either. Are these new "universal" docking systems already flying on ISS, or how does it all fit together?
braddock - 19/9/2005 10:44 AMWhat was the CEV weight mentioned? Is it within EELV lifting specs?
Chris Bergin - 19/9/2005 11:59 AMThis is not about new money for NASA, it's about redirecting and refocusing where NASA's money goes.There won't be a job boom or a job boost at NASA.
SimonShuttle - 19/9/2005 1:14 PMNothing on the Moon base, nothing on Mars, nothing on anything other than Apollo type stuff.
Bruce H - 19/9/2005 10:23 PMLockmarts lifting body proposal is dead. They are going to compete on the same terms as today's announcement.
A lot of people on don't seem to like these new proposals much don’t know why. If you look past the capsule this plan has all the elements needed to really work and a solid base for further developments later on.I think it is a very good use of available technology and budget. Just think before Bush announced the VSE NASA would still be flying the STS to the ISS andnothing more in 2020. Now they should have the first few Luna missions under their belt and well on the way to developing a capability to visit Mars.Don't forget that there is still the commercial access to the ISS proposals to come later in the year, if you want space planes and novel ideas there is the place to look.
Shuttle Man - 19/9/2005 5:59 PMWe've both worked on Apollo in its later life, Flight. This will only look like Apollo by way of its shape for the ballistic travel. What goes inside will be nothing like the LEM etc I think a lot of people will like some images of what the inside panels will look like, as that will excite people.
Space101 - 19/9/2005 6:20 PMIf it walks like a dog, it is a dog. This is NASA going back to the 1970s and I really would love to see a breakdown of what 104,000,000,000 dollars is paying for.
You know, on any other day, I'd slap you for saying that... but I can't argue with it tonight, it's the truth. We dropped the ball, and we dropped it good... if the Russian's can't make it to the Moon before we can, then there is something wrong!
Sergi Manstov - 19/9/2005 9:10 PMWe hope (here at RIA) that Russia to announce 2016 Moon plans on October 1 at Soyuz launch. I will be taking money bets that we are going to the moon before USA and in a space plane (Kliper) before you do in your not a space plane!
Everyone has overreacted to an extent!!! According to the information on nasa.gov, the architecture for going to the Moon will be begin development in 2011, and in 2013, ways to stay on the Moon for long-term missions will begin development. The plan is better than I initially thought... I have hope.
Sergi Manstov - 19/9/2005 10:10 PMWe hope (here at RIA) that Russia to announce 2016 Moon plans on October 1 at Soyuz launch. I will be taking money bets that we are going to the moon before USA and in a space plane (Kliper) before you do in your not a space plane!
realtime - 20/9/2005 12:16 AMWhat NASA is doing is building infrastructure for sustainable expansion into space. With heavy lift lots of things are possible and the cone of possibilities just keeps expanding as new technology comes online.
FransonUK - 20/9/2005 6:15 PMWell, I've given it some more thought and I'm really not at all excited about this. 13-15 years in the future we do what we did in 1969. Only when we do something new will I be excited.
Chris Bergin - 20/9/2005 5:59 PMI think most of the negative opinion is based on the fact it's an Apollo mission, rather than the Apollo look to the craft. Maybe I'm wrong.
FransonUK - 20/9/2005 6:03 PMQuoteChris Bergin - 20/9/2005 5:59 PMI think most of the negative opinion is based on the fact it's an Apollo mission, rather than the Apollo look to the craft. Maybe I'm wrong.Both if you ask me.
Chris Bergin - 20/9/2005 6:39 PMWell that's what I'd hope for, but they will be on the Moon for around six days, not the six months which is the eventual plan (if the money is there, if it's viable). Sure, they may test some water/oxygen extraction devices, etc...but nothing was really said about that. Just playing devil's advocate on this.
Chris Bergin - 20/9/2005 6:59 PMI think most of the negative opinion is based on the fact it's an Apollo mission, rather than the Apollo look to the craft. Maybe I'm wrong.
gladiator1332 - 20/9/2005 8:07 PM... I never expected us to establish a Moon base within the first few missions anyway ...
realtime - 20/9/2005 10:13 PMTaxpayers pay for dreams, not rocks.
FransonUK - 21/9/2005 11:02 AMI thought saftey had increased, when in fact, they could get back if they had a few RCS problems on the Shuttle, not on this!
FransonUK - 21/9/2005 5:02 PMI thought saftey had increased, when in fact, they could get back if they had a few RCS problems on the Shuttle, not on this!
realtime - 21/9/2005 10:27 PMNot bad results considering Katrina, Rita, Iraq, the foundering poll numbers of G.W. Bush, and the slanted nature of the question.Don't worry, though. In time, I'm sure the media will beat those numbers even lower.
realtime - 21/9/2005 10:19 PMWell, here's an article from the Las Vegas Sun that doesn't suck. Viva Las Vegas, the town that makes its living on optimism! http://www.lasvegassun.com/opinion/
SequencOr - 21/9/2005 12:05 PMWell, there's a competition going on, so the actual detailed design of the CEV has the potential to look quite different than what was seen in the presentation... as long as it fits snug atop the new launch vehicles.The presentation seen, was a basic but now official template of what NASA is looking for -- and what the competitors have to strive to design around.At least that's my take on the whole thing.
Shuttle Man - 22/9/2005 1:29 PMI'm not sure what you would like?
gladiator1332 - 22/9/2005 10:03 PMFace it, now matter who much you would like a sexy winged spacecraft, it isn't practical to take it to the Moon.
FransonUK - 23/9/2005 12:42 PMI can't find a picture of it, but it doesn't have wings and looks like it's actually a modern design. It's like flying cone, with a pointy end.
Chris SF - 23/9/2005 3:54 PMThat's a cool ship, what happened to it?
FransonUK - 23/9/2005 7:20 AMSo basically this will be our mode of distance space travel to the moon and then mars for decades to come? They have nothing better on the drawing board?
FransonUK - 25/9/2005 10:32 AMActually, I'm a woman Is it really safe coming back to Earth and hoping the paracutes open? Didn't that fail only recently with that probe which a helicopter was going to scoop it up?
Mind you I had the idea of designing the Launch Escape System as four small SRB's strapped directly on the angled side of an Apollo Capsule. They could be retained all the way through landing so they could be used as emergency retro rockets in case of multiple 'chute failure and hopefully make the final impact (in water) slow enough to be survivable. Just an idle thought...
I think that is a very good idea, and it may have future implications in spacecraft design. The LES would serve a dual purpose. One problem would be the volume of these rockets and its integration into the capsule without compromising its aerodynamics and/or its reentry heat shield. Still, it seems workable.
Colby - 25/9/2005 7:06 PMQuoteMind you I had the idea of designing the Launch Escape System as four small SRB's strapped directly on the angled side of an Apollo Capsule. They could be retained all the way through landing so they could be used as emergency retro rockets in case of multiple 'chute failure and hopefully make the final impact (in water) slow enough to be survivable. Just an idle thought...I think that is a very good idea, and it may have future implications in spacecraft design. The LES would serve a dual purpose. One problem would be the volume of these rockets and its integration into the capsule without compromising its aerodynamics and/or its reentry heat shield. Still, it seems workable.
realtime - 25/9/2005 10:46 PM50t (metric?) dry weight total, 135t loaded.If the CEV and service module (25t) came up on a 5-seg SRB stick, the hab and fuel (110t) would just fit on a Magnum or Longfellow.What's the mission profile look like for this bad boy?
realtime - 9/10/2005 2:43 PMInterorbital Systems has a design with escape rockets mounted along the sides, too. Liquid fueled, though. Crew of 5. Forward docking hatch on the centerline.http://www.interorbital.com/Neptune%20Page_1.htmForgot about this thread until I saw the IOS site.