[STS-Chris]

With the CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle)
back to Moon and then to Mars!


Perhaps a thread for the next decades.



Crew Exploration Vehicle
from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) is NASA's proposed series of human spaceflight spacecraft, intended to replace the space shuttle system. Together with the Earth Departure Stage (EDS), the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM), and the associated launch infrastructure, the CEV is one of the elements of Project Constellation.


Design

As of 2004, NASA has not made any design decisions. However, it is likely that the CEV will follow the service and crew module design principle. Instead of the reusable spaceplane used in the space shuttle system, the crew module will be either a capsule similar to the one used in the Apollo, Gemini, Soyuz and Shenzhou systems, or a lifting body, similar to the X-38 and Kliper. The CEV will launch on an expendable launch system and carry crew to low Earth orbit, and perhaps more ambitiously in the future to the Moon, Mars, and other destinations.


Competition

The Draft Statement of Work for the CEV was issued by NASA on December 9th 2004 and slightly more than one month later, on January 21st 2005, NASA issued a Draft RFP (Request For Proposal). The Final RFP was issued on March 1st 2005 with the potential bidders being asked to answer by May 2nd 2005.

NASA then plans to have a suborbital or an Earth orbit fly-off called Flight Application of Spacecraft Technologies (FAST) between two teams' CEV designs before September 1st 2008.

One of the main goals of the new CEV is lunar expeditions.

NASA will choose two main contractor teams for the fly-off. Each team will have a complete design for the CEV and its launch vehicle. The teams will also have to develop a plan for their CEV to take part in the assembly of a lunar expedition in earth orbit. The two major teams announced are:

- Northrop Grumman associated with Boeing as subcontractor for the Spiral One, Alenia Spazio, ARES Corporation, Draper Laboratory and United Space Alliance
- Lockheed Martin associated with EADS SPACE Transportation, United Space Alliance, Honeywell, Orbital Sciences, Hamilton Sundstrand and Wyle Laboratories

Lockheed's craft would be a small shuttle-shaped capsule, big enough for six astronauts and their equipment. Its airplane-shaped design makes it easier to navigate during high-speed returns to Earth than the capsule-shaped vehicles of the past, according to Lockheed Martin. According to French daily Le Figaro, EADS SPACE Transportation would be in charge of the design and construction of the associated Mission Module. The head of the Lockheed team is Cleon Lacefield.

Another announced team is t/Space, a consortium including such groups as Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites, Elon Musk's SpaceX, and Red Whittaker[1] of the Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute. Some news reports in mid-March 2005, stemming from an interview with New Scientist have reported that t/Space intends to withdraw from the competition, citing a high paperwork burden; however, no announcement of a withdrawal has been made by t/Space.

However, as of May 3rd, it seems that only Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman submitted bids. There is some speculation, based on remarks from NASA's associate administrator for exploration systems, Craig Steidle, that t/Space may be funded to pursue a "non-traditional" approach in parallel to the main competition.

Each contractor-led team will include subcontractors that will provide the lunar expedition astronauts with equipment, life support, rocket engines and onboard navigation systems. In the Earth orbit fly-offs, one complete CEV lunar mission design will compete against the other. NASA will choose the winner to build the final ships. Fly-offs are used by the U.S. Air Force to select military aircraft; this will be the first time that NASA has used this approach in awarding contracts.

Reusability is a valuable component, but initially not essential. The main choice will be what makes the most sense in designing the 21st century lunar craft.


Spiral development and schedule

NASA planners are focusing on a three-part plan for a return to the moon they call trade studies. NASA plans to have the winner of the fly-off competition design the CEV ships in a series of "spirals," or complete designs with spacecraft systems and subsystems:

- Exploration Spiral One (CEV Earth Orbit Capability). By 2014, Spiral 1 gear will test crew transportation elements in Low Earth Orbit, in preparation for human missions to the Moon. As new elements are developed, they will be tested in space with the Spiral 1 CEV.
- Exploration Spiral Two (Extended Lunar Exploration). By 2015 or 2020, Spiral 2 gear will put humans on the Moon for at least four days.
- Exploration Spiral Three (Long Duration Lunar Exploration). After 2020, Spiral 3 gear will allow routine human long-duration missions on the surface of the Moon to test out technologies and operational techniques for sending humans to Mars and beyond. Missions in Spiral 3 will last up to several months, serving as an operational analog of short-stay Mars missions.
- Exploration Spiral Four (Crew Transportation System Mars Flyby). After 2020, Spiral 4 gear will allow a Mars flyby mission using elements of the Human-Mars Crew Transportation System.
- Exploration Spiral Five (Human Mars Surface Campaign). After 2020, Spiral 5 gear will send humans to Mars.
NASA is also looking into building rockets with nuclear propulsion. This will not be part of the initial phase of building the Crew Exploration Vehicle.

NASA hopes to follow this schedule in development of the CEV:

- 2008 - The first prototype CEV is to be launched with a candidate launch vehicle. This is the fly-off called Flight Application of Spacecraft Technologies (FAST)
- 2008 - 3rd Quarter - NASA plans to select the final design for the lunar spacecraft and its mission mode.
- 2011 - First unmanned flight of CEV in earth orbit.
- 2014 - First manned flight of CEV in earth orbit.
- 2014 - First unmanned flight of lunar spacecraft design.
- 2015 - First manned flight of lunar spacecraft.
- 2015 - 2020 - First moon landing by astronauts in lunar spacecraft.


Origin

The proposal to create the CEV is partly a reaction to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board report and the White House's review of the American space program.

The CEV replaces the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program.

On January 14th 2004, President George W. Bush announced the CEV as part of the Vision for Space Exploration:

"Our second goal is to develop and test a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission no later than 2014. The Crew Exploration Vehicle will be capable of ferrying astronauts and scientists to the Space Station after the shuttle is retired. But the main purpose of this spacecraft will be to carry astronauts beyond our orbit to other worlds. This will be the first spacecraft of its kind since the Apollo Command Module."


Funding

President Bush's budget request for Financial Year 2005 includes: "$428 million for Project Constellation ($6.6 billion over five years) to develop a new crew exploration vehicle." Budget for year 2005 has been confirmed by the Congress in November 2004.

The FY2006 budget request includes $753 million for continuing development of the CEV.






May 3, 2005

NASA Receives Crew Exploration Vehicle Proposals
space.com

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Florida -- The future of human space transportation, not only into Earth orbit, but also back to the Moon and onto Mars, kick-started this week as NASA received contractor proposals for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV).

A glimpse into one concept -- provided by Lockheed Martin Space Systems near Denver, Colorado – shows a lifting body craft that can be outfitted for lunar as well as Mars operations.

“Basically what we came down on was the side of safety for the crew in making our decision to go with a lifting body,” said Patrick McKenzie, CEV Business Development Manager at Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company.

Additionally, the design of the basic vehicle would allow it to be utilized to support near-term human expeditions to the Moon, as well as Mars in the future, McKenzie told SPACE.com in a phone interview.


Lifting body approach

McKenzie said the lifting body design was preferred over a capsule for several reasons.

For one, that approach allows more cross-range maneuverability, thus the craft can touchdown on land versus water. Secondly, a lifting body can lessen the g-loads on returning crews from long-duration space stints, McKenzie said.

Whether they are lengthy stays in Earth orbit, a prolonged mission on the Moon, or the round-trip trauma on the human body from a Mars mission – the lifting body approach helps to minimize the g-forces on crew members, McKenzie noted.


Titanium shell

As part of a flight test program, McKenzie said that an unpiloted, full-scale version of the front-end of the company’s CEV design -- a rescue module -- would be flown to verify the safety elements of getting a crew back under a wide-range of circumstances. That would take place in 2008.

One feature of the company’s CEV design -- along with the firm’s teammates -- is use of a titanium shell, along with two layers of thermal protection materials.

“Even in the highly unlikely circumstance that you might have a burn through of the outer thermal protection system, the crew compartment inside would maintain its integrity and that burn through would not end up being a fatal situation for the crew,” McKenzie said.


Mars ready

McKenzie emphasized that the first mission for a CEV is returning to low Earth orbit. “But it makes sense to make sure that the vehicle that you’re developing this first go-round is going to be lunar capable,” he added, with the firm’s engineers also looking into how the concept could be made Mars ready.

“We’re attempting to the best extent possible to build in modularity into our systems and maintainability and ease of operations…so as new technologies and new capabilities are developed over the next 10 to 15 to 20 years, we’ll be able to take advantage of those without having to totally redesign a new vehicle,” McKenzie said.

McKenzie said that Lockheed Martin stands ready to work with NASA to help realize a stated objective of incoming NASA chief, Michael Griffin – to try and close the gap between shutdown of the shuttle in 2010 and operating a piloted CEV in 2014.

Furthermore, use of the CEV to support the International Space Station is on the table.

“Our CEV will certainly be capable of servicing station,” McKenzie stated, but the company’s proposal did not address that use as a key top requirement. This prospect would receive a thorough look early in the execution of a CEV program if the firm is selected, he said.

NASA has announced in the past the plan to award two teams CEV work this September.



Image 1
NASA received proposals this week from companies vying to build the Crew Exploration Vehicle. Lockheed Martin proposal features lifting body concept that can be augmented to support Moon and Mars expeditionary campaigns. Image Credit: Lockheed Martin

Image 2
All aboard the "Lunar train" - featuring Crew Exploration Vehicle systems augmented to support a human return to Earth's Moon. Image Credit: Lockheed Martin

Image 3
Mission to Mars. This view shows use of a proposed lifting body craft so crews returning from the red planet can lessen g-loads on their deconditioned bodies after the long sojourn. Image Credit: Lockheed Martin









May 19, 2005

NASA's Michael Griffin Pushes To Replace Shuttle
sci-tech-today.com


Griffin said he finds that four-year launch gap unacceptable and hopes to have a plan for closing it by mid-July. The new crew exploration vehicle, or CEV, is a key part of President Bush's plan for returning astronauts to the moon by 2020.

NASA's new boss made an impassioned case for speeding up development of a new spacecraft so that the United States will not lose access to space when the shuttle is retired, but warned something else will have to be sacrificed.
Administrator Michael Griffin told a Senate subcommittee in Washington that to cover the cost of the shuttle replacement's accelerated debut, he may be forced to delay some space station and exploration research.

"We can't do everything on our plate, and we have to have priorities and first things first," he said.

Griffin wants to fly the proposed new spacecraft as soon as possible once the space shuttle fleet is retired in 2010 -- avoiding a four-year gap in which the United States would have no way to launch astronauts.

The current plan, which he inherited when he took over NASA last month, calls for the new vehicle to carry a crew into orbit by 2014 and be capable of traveling to the moon and Mars, with modifications, in the years beyond.

Griffin said he finds that four-year launch gap unacceptable and hopes to have a plan for closing it by mid-July. The new crew exploration vehicle, or CEV, is a key part of President Bush's plan for returning astronauts to the moon by 2020.

"CEV needs to be safe, it needs to be simple, it needs to be soon," Griffin told reporters later in the afternoon.

The six-year gap between the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz mission and the 1981 debut of the shuttle damaged both the U.S. space program and the nation, Griffin said. "I don't want to do it again."

"The United States of America should always have its own access to space," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.

Griffin told the Senate subcommittee on commerce, justice and science that he does not know how much it will cost to accelerate development of the crew exploration vehicle, still in the early design phase. But he said by choosing a single contractor in 2006, rather than having two contractors competing in flight in 2008 as envisioned by the former NASA administrator, $1 billion or more could be saved for use in the near term.

Additional money could be saved by putting off research at the international space station -- such as experiments geared toward long-term moon stays or Mars habitation -- and possibly eliminating the handful of shuttle flights needed to fly that equipment, Griffin said. Eighteen shuttle missions are currently on the books to finish building the space station, along with 10 supply runs for a grand total of 28.

Right now, NASA's three remaining shuttles are grounded as the agency struggles to remedy all the safety concerns arising from the 2003 Columbia tragedy. Managers hope to launch Discovery on the first mission since the disaster in mid-July; repair work is going slow, though, and the schedule is tight.

Griffin assured the senators he would use a scalpel rather than a meat ax in cutting the research budget for the space station and other exploration systems, and would look at delaying projects not yet begun.

"Now the research ... is very valuable and it must be done," he said. "But if it is delayed a very few years in order to allow us to complete and affect a suitable transition between systems, then I believe that that delay would be worth it. And that would be where I would look for the money."

Griffin pledged that NASA will complete the space station, currently just half built. But if the station still isn't finished when the shuttles are retired, the space agency may turn to unmanned rockets to haul up the remaining gear.

As for the Hubble Space Telescope, Griffin has ordered work to begin on one last shuttle servicing mission, with $291 million set aside in next year's budget. Whether that mission takes place will depend on the success of the next two shuttle missions.

Griffin's predecessor, Sean O'Keefe, ruled out Hubble visits by astronauts because of post-Columbia safety concerns.

[STS-Chris]

NASA outlines plans for moon and Mars

36 years after Apollo 11, the agency proposes new spacecraft and a lunar base to prepare for the next giant leap -- to the Red Planet.

NASA's new road map for the human exploration of space would land four astronauts on the moon by 2018 as the first step toward an eventual six-person voyage to Mars.



View the full-size graphic on the
planned steps to get to the moon
and back again.







Pioneers would build a lunar outpost, most likely at the south pole, with living quarters, power plants and communication systems. Expeditions would scavenge the desolate landscape for precious supplies such as fuel and water.

Astronauts would roam the surface in high-tech dune buggies to search for answers to scientific riddles that continue to baffle researchers. The crews would blast off aboard rockets derived from the space-shuttle fleet and parachute back to Earth in capsules similar to those used during the Apollo program.

The assault on the moon would be a precursor to 500-day expeditions on Mars, an alien world more than 35 million miles away that some scientists suspect could hold evidence of extraterrestrial life.

Those and other specifics of NASA's ambitious plans for a new era of human space travel are outlined in a set of internal briefing charts on the agency's recent Exploration Systems Architecture Study. A copy of those briefings, parts of which are scheduled to be made public next month, was obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.

Some things are subject to change, and important decisions have yet to be made. But the study is the first detailed description of how NASA intends to accomplish the goals announced by President Bush in January 2004 of returning astronauts to the moon by 2020 to prepare for later missions to Mars.

So far, the program has considerable support from the White House and Congress, but to become a reality, it will have to withstand the test of time. The study estimates the program will cost about $217 billion through 2025. NASA's exploration office is projected to receive about the same amount of money during that period.

To stay within the budget, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has spent much of his first three months on the job refocusing the agency and its resources on preparing for a return to the moon.

"I hope that you will see as we bring it forward," Griffin told Congress on June 28, "a logical, clean, simple, straightforward approach."

Griffin's influence already has been felt. The current study is the result of a 60-day review of previous exploration plans. It contains a number of important changes. Among them:

A version of the same ship designed to carry astronauts to the moon first would ferry crews to the international space station. The gap between the initial manned launches of that vehicle in 2011 and the shuttle's planned retirement in 2010 was shortened from four years to one. And a new fleet of rockets to support human missions is expected to be cheaper and safer by building on existing parts of the shuttle.

NASA managers have declined to be interviewed about the plan until its public release. One, however, said privately that Griffin's involvement has made a huge difference.

"We [NASA] can no longer take a business-as-usual approach, and Mike Griffin clearly understands that," the manager said. "We have to be more financially and technically creative to do the things we need to do."

Doing the heavy lifting

All of the hardware needed for the Apollo moon landings from 1969 to 1972 reached orbit with a single launch of the giant Saturn 5 rocket. But because Saturn 5 production ended more than 30 years ago, NASA has been looking for new boosters powerful enough to lift the heavy loads required for lunar missions.

Engineers debated for months whether to develop a heavy-lift rocket from parts of the shuttle or rely on improved versions of the Atlas and Delta boosters used by the Air Force to launch satellites. According to the study, they chose the shuttle-derived option because of lower cost and superior lifting ability.

"[It's the] only viable solution given [the] time frame and current market," the study noted.

The hardware and cargo required for lunar missions would lift off aboard a 40-story colossus built around the shuttle's external fuel tank. This unmanned booster would be developed between 2010 and 2018.

Five of the shuttle's main engines and larger versions of its twin booster rockets would power the launcher. Some versions would be capable of carrying a hefty 125 tons into Earth orbit, making it almost the equal of the Saturn 5. The projected price tag of $540 million per launch is comparable to the cost of a shuttle flight.

The giant booster would have a powerful new upper stage. This so-called Earth Departure Stage would be used to hurl spacecraft toward the moon. Also designed from the shuttle's fuel tank, it would be equipped with an upgraded pair of the same engines used on the Saturn 5's upper stages.

NASA has decided to launch future astronauts on moon and space-station missions aboard a separate rocket derived from another piece of shuttle hardware.

Starting in June 2011, astronauts would lift off to the station atop a modified version of the shuttle's pencil-shaped solid-rocket booster. The rocket's new second stage would be powered by one of the shuttle's main engines.

The $280 million missions would free NASA from having to depend solely on the Russians for station flights after the shuttle's retirement. The same rocket later would be used to launch crews into low Earth orbit to begin trips to the moon. NASA estimates the launcher would be nine times safer than the shuttle.

"We have ways to construct such vehicles using shuttle solid-rocket motors and external tanks and shuttle main engines," Griffin said of the new boosters Friday. "We think the existing components offer us huge cost advantages as opposed to starting from a clean sheet of paper, and that's what I've proposed doing."

Next-generation spaceships

New spacecraft are being designed to ride atop the new rockets.

Engineers already are developing a cone-shaped Crew Exploration Vehicle, or CEV. Initial versions of the CEV would launch aboard the modified shuttle booster rocket and carry three-person crews to the space station a couple of times per year.

The ships also could be used to transport cargo to the outpost. Larger, future versions of the capsule would take four people to the moon and six-person crews to Mars.

Last month, NASA awarded a pair of $28 million contracts to Lockheed Martin and a Northrop Grumman-Boeing team to come up with designs for the new ship. The agency will select one of the two proposals in March.

NASA managers plan to review the CEV's engineering design in July 2006 with the goal of having the spacecraft ready for a manned launch to the station in 2011. Having the CEV available as soon as possible could become critical if the White House rethinks the shuttle's 2010 retirement date because of continuing problems with hazardous launch debris during shuttle Discovery's liftoff Tuesday.

The CEV will be strikingly similar to the Apollo command module but larger. Astronauts on future lunar flights will have more than twice the room.

In another throwback to Apollo, the 12-ton capsule would be mated to a service module that provides power and propulsion during the journey to and from the moon. Crews returning home in the CEV would jettison the service module before making a fiery plunge through Earth's atmosphere and parachuting to the ground.

The capsule then would thump down on land as Russian missions did instead of splashing down in the Pacific Ocean as Apollo flights did.

NASA already has identified three possible landing sites in the Western United States: Edwards Air Force Base in Southern California's Mojave Desert, the Carson Flats area of Nevada and near Moses Lake in eastern Washington.

The ship's flight path would carry it over the Pacific Ocean, minimizing the risk to people below if something went wrong. If necessary, the capsule would be capable of making a water landing. The CEV will have an expendable heat shield, and versions that go to the space station could be reused for up to 10 missions.

In addition to the CEV, engineers have begun looking at designs for the lander that will carry astronauts from lunar orbit to the moon's surface and back. Development is scheduled to accelerate in 2010, with a spacecraft ready for flight by 2018.

The lander's design follows the same general concept as Apollo's. It has two basic parts. The bottom descent stage is a four-legged platform with rocket engines that lower the craft to the moon's surface. A detachable upper ascent stage serves as a crew compartment and launches the astronauts back to lunar orbit when their mission is complete.

The ascent stage's engines are designed to burn liquid-methane propellant. Small amounts of methane are thought to be present in Mars' atmosphere, creating the possibility that astronauts might be able to produce their own rocket fuel instead of carrying it with them.

The lander would remain on the lunar surface for about a week. An airlock would allow a crew of four astronauts to leave the ship for moonwalks. The lander held only two astronauts during the Apollo missions.

The craft is designed to carry up to 23 tons of cargo and could be used to rotate crews living at a lunar base.

"We can gain quite a bit of science," said David Black, an astrophysicist and head of a research association that oversees the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston. "One of the things we can get is a better handle on the origin of the moon and how it relates to Earth."



Getting to the moon

One of the great technical challenges of the early 1960s was how to design the Apollo moon landings. Engineers debated a number of ideas.

Some suggested a direct approach in which parts of a massive Saturn 8 or Nova rocket would launch from Earth, fly to the moon, land there, blast off again and return to Earth. The size of the rocket needed and the fuel required made the idea impractical.

Another approach, initially favored by rocket visionary Wernher von Braun, was called Earth Orbit Rendezvous. This method proposed launching several smaller rockets carrying the hardware needed for a lunar mission.

The pieces would be assembled in Earth orbit, and then the larger spacecraft would travel to the moon and back. This plan was abandoned in 1962 largely because of unknowns about putting together a rocket in space.

Apollo engineers ultimately decided on a third approach known as Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. A single Saturn 5 booster launched all of the spacecraft needed for the mission. After the systems were checked out in Earth orbit, the rocket's third stage restarted to propel the mission to the moon.

Next, the Apollo command module and service module separated and docked with a lunar lander housed inside the third stage. Once in orbit around the moon, two astronauts piloted the lander to the surface. An ascent stage atop the lander launched back to lunar orbit, where it mated with the command module for the astronauts' return to Earth.

In recent months, NASA engineers have been debating some of the same issues their predecessors faced four decades ago. The result is a new blueprint similar to Apollo's but with features of von Braun's early Earth Orbit Rendezvous approach.

Future lunar missions would launch aboard two separate rockets. The giant new 40-story booster would carry the lunar lander into space atop the fuel-filled Earth Departure Stage. Next, the CEV and service module would lift off aboard the smaller, modified shuttle booster.

Once in low Earth orbit, the CEV would dock with the lunar lander. From there, the mission would be virtually identical to Apollo's. The Earth Departure Stage would rocket the spacecraft toward lunar orbit. Four astronauts would descend to the surface aboard the lander. A week or so later, they would lift off from the moon and dock with the CEV, which would carry them back to Earth.

"You have to take the long view and not get yourself into a situation like before where we go to the moon and aren't positioned to build on it," astrophysicist Black said. "This approach makes a lot of sense if you are going on to Mars."

Lunar-life lessons

Current plans call for a minimum of two lunar missions per year beginning in 2018.

Astronauts would conduct long-term research in several scientific disciplines, including astrobiology, geology, astronomy and physics. Some of the studies will gauge how the human body responds over time to weaker gravity, increased solar radiation and other conditions found away from Earth.

Crews also would try to take advantage of any available resources on the moon and live off the land. The goal is to eventually develop a lunar base.

A likely location for an outpost is near Shackleton Crater at the moon's south pole, where scientists suspect there are relatively high levels of hydrogen, a potential fuel source, and the possibility of water ice. Missions would gradually build power, communication and navigation systems, and a place to live. Rovers more advanced than those during Apollo would be used to explore the surface.

Other high-priority sites for exploration include the north pole, three locations on the dark side of the moon and the Sea of Tranquillity, where Apollo 11 made the first manned lunar landing in 1969.

One of NASA's main reasons for returning astronauts to the moon and living there is to master the technologies and gain the experience needed for future human voyages to Mars. Detailed development of those expeditions is expected to begin about 2020, but the broad outlines already are starting to take shape.

Four or five launches with the giant heavy-lift boosters would carry into orbit the mission's spacecraft and hardware. Before the six-person crew lifts off, however, an outpost with living quarters, power, communications and a return ship would land on the Martian surface by remote control.

The astronauts' trip would take about six months each way. Once on Mars, the crew would spend 500 days exploring large areas of the surface and doing research, including the search for evidence of past or present life. Astronauts would attempt to tap the Martian environment for oxygen and water, two essential supplies, and liquid oxygen and methane, the two propellants that will power the landing craft.

Risks and challenges await

NASA's ambitious plan faces several major technical and political challenges.

One is keeping astronauts healthy. For years, scientists have been concerned about exposure to harmful solar radiation in space, where Earth's atmosphere no longer provides a shield.

According to the study, astronauts who spend long periods of time in low Earth orbit have a 3 percent additional risk of contracting lethal cancer during their lifetime. Currently, there are no radiation guidelines for missions beyond Earth's orbit, although the National Council on Radiation Protection is developing some.

A massive solar storm in August 1972 was the largest radiation event ever recorded. Engineers are trying to develop CEV shielding to offer protection from a storm four times that strong. NASA estimates that an aluminum vehicle with moderate shielding would limit the chance of an astronaut getting sick from such an event to 2.9 percent, with a tiny 0.02 percent chance of death.

The space agency assesses the lunar missions' overall risks as relatively small, mainly because of the use of proven systems and technology.

NASA estimates the chance of a failure derailing a mission is less than 6.3 percent, with the chance of the crew dying at 1.3 percent. In contrast, a May 1962 risk analysis before the Apollo program concluded the chance of losing astronauts during the first attempt to land on the moon was 22 percent.

Political challenges here on Earth pose a threat of a different sort. The program's cost already has stirred debate.

The estimated $217 billion price tag is only $7 billion more than the projected budget for NASA's exploration office during the next 20 years. That estimate also includes developing new engines for the Earth Departure Stage. NASA now plans a cheaper approach that would modify engines used during Apollo.

The money crunch will be greatest during the next five years while the shuttle is still flying. But over time, adequate funding for the plan appears likely, at least on paper, if the projects can manage to stay within their budgets.

NASA's overall budget is expected to reach about $17 billion in 2006. If the agency averages only $20 billion annually during the next 20 years, it will receive a total of $400 billion. The estimated $217 billion exploration cost through 2025 represents 54 percent of that total. NASA already spends about half of its budget on human-spaceflight programs.

The challenge will be to keep the projects on schedule and within budget. The plan also must survive three presidential elections and five new Congresses before astronauts again can walk on the moon.

"It's going to take a long, persistent, patient effort," said Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., a member of the House Science Committee. "The question is: 'Will political leaders and the public continue that support for that length of time?' "

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who flew aboard the shuttle as a congressman, is optimistic.

"I think with a visionary president, you can ignite the imagination of people and kindle that yearning for exploration," Nelson said. "I think this is very doable in Congress because Congress is a reflection of the American people."


Credit: nasawatch.com

[STS-Chris]

NASA picks rocket for return to Moon

Agency opts for 100t launcher using Shuttle technology.

August 23, 2005 - NASA has decided to develop a 100t to low-Earth orbit (LEO) in-line heavylift booster using a highly modified external tank and new five segment solid-rocket boosters (SRB), Christopher Shank, special assistant to NASA administrator Michael Griffin, has revealed to Flight International.

Shank says the agency will also develop a crew exploration vehicle (CEV) launcher that will be an in-line SRB with a cryogenic second stage.

These will become the launch vehicles to take the USA back to the Moon from 2015 and beyond. Previously NASA administrator Michael Griffin had only expressed his personal preference for Shuttle derived launch vehicles. The 100t launcher will place lunar mission boosters and other heavy hardware into LEO.

“A lot of this [decision] has to do with launch loads and safety aspects. It is better to do it with in-line,” says Shank.

He adds that NASA’s leadership is aware that an in-line booster requires major launch complex and vehicle assembly building changes, but future budget estimates take this into account. Planners are working on the 2007 budget. Shank expects US congressional representatives will want to discuss the decision when they reconvene on 9 September.

The alternative to the in-line version was an expendable 70t-to-LEO side mounted Shuttle-like cargo pod. However, the 5 August selection of the in-line solution was based on work carried out by the 60-day Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS), created on 29 April by Griffin, and earlier studies that fed into ESAS.

ESAS concluded that the CEV launcher should have a 35t-to-LEO capability because two CEV versions are needed: a 25t International Space Station crew transfer variant and a 35t lunar mission CEV.


The side-mount and in-line version


Credit: Flight International

[Trek Realist]

Have they figured out the return trip decelleration/fuel problem? I know that in a recent interview with Buzz Aldren he said that this was going to be one of the significant challenges of any system that used ISS as a platform for transiting from the earth to the moon or mars.

[Greasespot]

I recently read a book co-authored by Buzz Aldrin called "Encounter at Tiber". In it many concepts, (one illustrated above), of interplanetary flight where used. I'd recomend the book to anyone interested in getting "out there" with our tech base.

The concept of the Mars cycler was of great interest to me. A ship that was in an orbit that brought it by the Earth and Mars periodically.

[WeatherManNX01]

From NASA.gov

NASA.gov said:

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.

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.

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. The crew launches separately, then docks their capsule with the lander and departure stage and heads for the moon.

Three days later, the crew goes into lunar orbit. 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, 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.

'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.

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.

To see the NASA article in all it's splendor with images and Flash animations go to NASA.gov

I don't know about you, but this is really exciting to me! I can't wait to see the project in action. The project is slated to cost 103 billion dollars over thirteen years.

[WeatherManNX01]

We still need a new shuttle fleet. Personally, I vote for the X-33 project (craft seen in the opening credits of Star Trek: Enterprise).

[STS-Chris]

Monday, September 19, 2005

NASA today unveiled an ambitious blueprint for returning American astronauts to the moon by 2018 using new rockets based on shuttle propulsion technology and a new reusable crew vehicle. Administrator Mike Griffin described as "Apollo on steroids."
At the end of this posting, you will find a few links to high resolution concept images and a video file.
It was already published before, that the flight to the moon and back will nearly accomplish like in Apollo era (1969 - 1972).




From NASA:

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.


NASA's new crew exploration vehicle in lunar orbit.
Click to enlarge. Artist's concept by John
Frassanito and Associates.

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.


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).



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).



+ View More Detailed Graphic


'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.

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.


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

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.

Credit: NASA





And here are a few highly recommended links and downloads:

+ Flash Feature

+ Animation (25 Mb QuickTime)

+ Full Resolution Images

+ Frequently Asked Questions

+ Fact Sheet (28 Kb PDF)

+ Presentation (5.9 Mb PDF)

+ Exploration Systems Web site



NASA TV

[NX014Ever]

Kind of like the old Apollo program, but on steroids! I don't know where they will get the money, what with the hurricanes and the war. We are just running out of money here in the U.S. But I still hope it happens (can you say anonymous donors?).

[CessnaDriver]

Anyone know if the Lockheed Martin winged lifting body design is still on the table? I see all these capsule animations and artists conceptions and wonder if they are just putting a generic CEV in them or if they are really leaning hard for a capsule design.

[CessnaDriver]

Read the other day the lifting body is out. CEV will be a capsule design only. Lockheed Martin anticipated this and had design teams already working on it.

[STS-Chris]

September 28, 2005

NASA chief: Shuttle a blunder

Griffin says moon plan puts agency on track

BY TRACI WATSON
USA TODAY

The shuttle and International Space Station -- the whole of the U.S. manned space program for the past three decades -- were mistakes, NASA chief Mike Griffin said Tuesday.

In a meeting with USA Today's editorial board, Griffin said NASA lost its way in the 1970s, when the agency ended the Apollo program of moon visits in favor of developing the shuttle and space station, which can only orbit Earth.

"It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path," Griffin said. "We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can. It cannot be done instantaneously."

The shuttle has cost the United States the lives of 14 astronauts and billions of dollars in operating costs since the spacecraft's first flight in 1982. The total cost of the space station by the time it's finished -- probably in 2010 or later -- may exceed $100 billion, though other nations will bear some of that.

Only now is the nation's space program getting back on track, Griffin said. He announced last week that NASA aims to send astronauts back to the moon in 2018 in a spacecraft that would look like the Apollo capsule and would be carried into space by a rocket built from shuttle components.

Griffin has made clear in previous statements that he regards the shuttle and space station as misguided. He told the Senate earlier this year that the shuttle was "deeply flawed" and that the space station was not worth "the expense, the risk and the difficulty" of flying humans to space.

Asked Tuesday whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin said, "My opinion is that it was. It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible, especially with the amount of funding allocated to the problem."

Asked the same question about the space station, which was started in 1999 and is orbiting Earth, he said, "Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."


Credit: floridatoday.com





The Shuttle and ISS - a mistake?!
What about the Hubble Space Telescope for example? Without the Shuttle, there were no HST and no Servicing Missions.

[Renderking Fisk]

There's going to come a time when NASA and other agencies will have diffrent designs in the works, instead of relying on just ONE system which cause chaos and failure with the shuttle being the exclusive transportation system.

[STS-Chris]

23 November 2005

Bush's space exploration plan in danger

Shuttle program's deficit may mean far fewer flights

A large deficit in NASA's troubled shuttle program threatens to seriously delay and possibly cripple President Bush's space exploration initiative unless the number of planned flights is cut virtually in half or the White House agrees to add billions of dollars to the human spaceflight budget.

Sources familiar with ongoing negotiations between NASA and the White House say the administration has no intention of spending extra money to deal with a shortfall that some space experts say could exceed $6 billion from 2006 to 2010, when NASA plans to retire the shuttle for good.

The source of the deficit is the travail that has plagued the shuttle program since the Columbia disaster in 2003. After a single flight by Discovery this summer, the orbiters -- grounded for 2 1/2 years after Columbia -- are out of action again until at least May while engineers work to make them safer.

One option being considered to close the shortfall is to limit the number of flights to two per year -- 10 in all -- and cut the workforce. But shuttle program manager Wayne Hale said in a televised news conference yesterday that "frankly it doesn't save you very much money. . . . From my point of view, that's a non-starter."

NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin has said that terminating the shuttle program would be just as expensive as keeping it going. The shuttle routinely consumes more than 30 percent of NASA's budget.

The impasse has put the future of Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration" in doubt less than two years after it was announced. Without extra money, experts say, NASA could have trouble developing a new "crew exploration vehicle" by 2014, as originally planned, let alone fulfilling Griffin's wish to fly it by 2012. The dilemma is also fueling an odd confrontation between the administration and Congress, where once-wary lawmakers now appear willing to provide the extra funding even as the White House backs away from its own initiative. "The decisions made over the next few weeks will determine whether the Bush White House is serious about supporting the vision," said John Logsdon, director of George Washington University's Space Policy Institute. "We've reached a watershed."



'A journey, not a race'

The cornerstones of the Bush initiative, announced in a speech on Jan. 14, 2004, are to use the shuttle to finish the international space station by 2010, develop the crew exploration vehicle by 2014, return humans to the moon by 2020 and eventually move on to Mars.

Bush called the plan "a journey, not a race," to be completed without appreciable increases in NASA's budget.

Initially, Congress expressed suspicion that the initiative was either a grandiose but empty gesture or a risky project that would cannibalize established NASA programs to raise the needed funding. Last year, it took an eleventh-hour arm-twist by then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) to win passage of NASA's $16.1 billion budget, but this year lawmakers easily passed the 2006 budget -- for the full $16.5 billion the White House requested.

The difference was that Griffin, confirmed in April of this year, earned congressional trust by reorganizing NASA and segregating the shuttle and exploration vehicle programs from the rest of NASA's portfolio.

Where he has not fared so well, however, is in allaying lawmakers' misgivings about the "gap" in human space travel between the end of the shuttle program in 2010 and the first manned flights of the new exploration vehicle in 2014.

Griffin said earlier this year that NASA now projects that the new spaceship would fly by 2012, with a return to the moon by 2018, but he was unable to satisfy those who want to close the gap completely. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), chairman of the science and space subcommittee, said on Sept. 19 that she "will do everything possible to keep the shuttle and crew exploration vehicle programs on course," and her words have come to encapsulate the dilemma now facing NASA.

Under the budgets projected for the next five years, experts outside and within the Bush administration agree, it will be impossible -- by several billion dollars -- to complete the planned shuttle missions and finish the new spacecraft by 2012, or maybe even by 2014.


NASA and the White House budget office said they could not comment on the shortfall before the official 2007 budget rollout in February, but several expert sources described ongoing negotiations to find a solution. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to become part of the public debate or were not authorized to speak for their employers.

"The budget associated with the Vision's announcement in 2004 [anticipated] that the shuttle's demands would significantly decrease in 2008 and 2009," said one longtime NASA watcher. "That was a myth."


$6 billion deficit?

Griffin acknowledged as much at a Nov. 3 House Science Committee hearing, saying the plan to finish the space station and retire the shuttle in 2010 faces a "$3 billion to $5 billion" funding shortfall.

A committee document placed the deficit at "nearly $6 billion," and some sources said even that figure could be low. NASA's budget difficulties have also been complicated by having to pay for about $400 million in special projects inserted, mostly by senators, into the agency's 2006 funding.

The sources said the White House is juggling several proposals to close the deficit, but one industry source said, "None of the choices are good -- NASA's in a box."

But the White House, struggling with the costs of the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, is unlikely to find billions more for space travel. "There's really no place Griffin can go," said one source familiar with the negotiations. "The White House gave him the best deal he could expect. He can go back to the well, but it's not going to happen."

Several sources confirmed that the budget office in the early negotiations proposed stopping shuttle flights altogether. "It sucks money out of the budget, and it's a dead-end program," one source said.

But "that argument's over," another source said. "The political side of the White House said, 'We're keeping it.' If you kill the shuttle right now, it will be heavy lifting for your foreign policy because of the international obligations" around the space station.

A proposal under consideration would keep the full complement of shuttle flights -- 18 to finish the space station and one to service the Hubble Space Telescope -- and let completion of the crew exploration vehicle slip to 2014, if necessary, or even beyond.

"The president said originally there would be a four-year gap, and that's realistic," one source said. "My personal view, though, is whatever date you set . . . it will slip."

Some negotiators believe they could salvage the 2012 delivery date if NASA goes to "serial processing," using only one team of engineers to prepare shuttle flights one at a time. The sources said this would drop the total number of flights to about 10.



'Nobody's first choice'

"But what kind of a space station do you get out of that?" one source asked. "And while you can reduce the workforce and maybe save some money, you don't know how much, and you're not making anyone happy. This is nobody's first choice."

The fourth possibility, the one probably favored by Congress, is to fully fund both the shuttle and the new spacecraft, thus eliminating the entire four-year gap and ensuring a seamless transition to a new era in human space travel.

"The message to the White House is to pony up," one congressional source said. "The green-eyeshade approach undermines the president's legacy. You've got to have a space station worthy of the name, and you've got to close the gap."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Credit: MSNBC / Washington Post



1) ULF1.1 STS-121 * Return to Flight test mission
2) 12A STS-115 * Second port truss segment (ITS P3/P4)
3) 12A.1 STS-116 * Third port truss segment (ITS P5)
4) 13A STS-117 * Second starboard truss segment (ITS S3/S4)
5) 13A.1 STS-118 * SPACEHAB Single Cargo Module * Third starboard truss segment (ITS S5)
6) 15A STS-119 * Fourth starboard truss segment (ITS S6)
7) 10A STS-120 * U.S. Node 2
8) ULF2 U.S. Orbiter * Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM)
9) ATV1 * European Automated Transfer Vehicle
10) 1E U.S. Orbiter * European Laboratory - Columbus Module
11) UF-3 U.S. Orbiter * Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM)
12) UF-4 U.S. Orbiter * Spacelab Pallet carrying "Canada Hand"
13) UF-5 U.S. Orbiter * Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM)
14) UF-4.1 U.S. Orbiter * EXPRESS Pallet
15) UF-6 U.S. Orbiter * Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM)
16) 1J/A U.S. Orbiter * Japanese Experiment Module Experiment Logistics Module (JEM ELM PS)
17) 1J U.S. Orbiter * Kibo Japanese Experiment Module (JEM) + RMS

This post has been edited by Captain Chris Levitt: 25 November 2005 - 01:30 PM

[Trek Realist]

I have read a couple of the comments here and wanted to add two more cents to the discussion.

The idea of having multiple means to achieve the goal seems a good idea except that for each method you have to do this you would have to spend an equivilent amount of money for each mode because of the costs of different components and technicians trained to deal with the specific requirements of each vehicle. That would take a global effort and, sorry, terrans aren't mature enough to play nice with each other at that level yet.

Bush's plan for the Moon and Mars seems to be unfolding the way I figured it would. Make a big announcement and slowly leak changes that erode and eventually terminate the plan for "reassessment".

If they are going to go through the effort of using 2 vehicles to perform a mission to the moon, then they really should incorporate a method of having "leave behind" modules, equipment, and material to facilitate longer lunar stays. Parts required for habitat modules, consumeables, vehicles and power generation should be incorporated into the mission plan right from the start. The Mars mission has already proved we can deliver unmanned packages to another world safely and effectively, and while the lack of a lunar atmosphere does present a challenge when you look at the delivery method used on Mars, the 1/6th gravity should offset that problem a bit.

I think the budget should be allowed to include ALL the shuttle missions required to complete ISS and at least one more mission to service and upgrade Hubble (despite early setbacks this has been one of the most astounding and successful programs both for scientific value and public relations), and the additional funds to begin the new lunar mission program in tandem with the current program. No gap, no transition.

NASA has tripped a couple of times. And, when you trip enough times you start to look at your feet to see what is wrong rather than look to where you are going. Space exploration is not ego, it is not patriotism, it does not move political agendas ... It is mankind's Manifest Destiny to travel among the stars and pursue the more noble goal of exploration.

Of our will to explore, Tennyson says it best "To strive, to seek, to find, and never to yield."

[Shlomi of Vulcan]

Two Words: Too Cool!

[CessnaDriver]

Trek Realist, on Dec 21 2005, 04:40 PM, said:

Of our will to explore, Tennyson says it best "To strive, to seek, to find, and never to yield."

"For I dipt into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;

Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales"

From "Locksley Hall"
by Alfred Lord Tennyson

[Shodar]

UFP1701, on Sep 19 2005, 03:56 PM, said:

I am afraid that our Nation's Shuttle Fleet will only be viewed as a giant step towards what is to becomes NASA's new role, one of colonization and Deep Space Exploration...

Our Shuttle Fleet has, in the words of our favor Captain "done our bit for King and Country"

Roger

An interesting article today about the shuttle: http://us.cnn.com/20...reut/index.html

Quote

Astronaut questions shuttle safety in book
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Astronaut Mike Mullane has flown on the shuttle three times and would go again in a heartbeat, but in a new memoir he called this ship the most dangerous spacecraft humans have ever ridden.

NASA's bureaucracy helped make it that way, he said, by discouraging questions about safety and other matters. Astronauts deserve some share of responsibility too, Mullane said in a Reuters interview about his book "Riding Rockets," published this month

"It's the most dangerous manned spacecraft ever flown, by anybody," said 60-year-old Mullane, who retired from NASA in 1990. "And I say that because it has no powered-flight escape system ... Basically the bailout system we have on the shuttle is the same bailout system a B-17 bomber pilot had in World War Two."

A powered-flight escape system that would have blasted shuttle astronauts from the doomed craft might have saved the Challenger crew when that shuttle exploded seconds after launch on January 28, 1986, Mullane said.

It probably would not have been able to keep the Columbia crew alive as their ship disintegrated on re-entry on February 1, 2003. These two disasters claimed 14 lives.

"That was the true tragedy of Challenger: Nothing was learned. Columbia was a repeat of Challenger, where people had a known design problem" and launched anyway, Mullane said.

Despite the book's rollicking tone and self-deprecating humor, Mullane has a serious point to make: That astronauts with a competitive urge and a compulsion to fly hesitated to raise questions because they thought bucking NASA's bureaucracy would keep them from getting into orbit.
'Take this job and shove it'

"I survived as we all survived: I kept my mouth shut, I endured ... You walk in terrified of doing anything that might jeopardize your one chance to get to space," he said. "It's not like other jobs, where if you get frustrated you can go in to your boss and say, 'Take this job and shove it!' You can't do that at NASA because there's no other place to go fly shuttles."

Columbia accident investigators called this reluctance to make waves a "broken safety culture" at the U.S. space agency.

Mullane agreed, even though he was part of it, as a member of the astronaut class of 1978, the first to ride the shuttle.

"We were bitterly angry and disgusted with our management," Mullane wrote of astronauts' attitudes after the Challenger accident. "In our criticisms, we ignored our own mad thirst for flight ... Only janitors and cafeteria workers at NASA were blameless in the deaths of the Challenger seven."

Mullane's own thirst for space flight began in childhood and continued through his selection as an astronaut. Since his retirement, he has written children's books about space and works as a motivational speaker.

The autobiographical book opens with a vivid account of his drive to be the best applicant for the corps, down to his preparation for a proctological exam.

"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot," Mullane wrote. "I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
Astronaut humiliations

Further humiliations lay ahead, like the time Mullane tried on a NASA-issued condom -- used for urine collection in weightlessness -- and watched the too-large sheath drop off and fall to the floor.

"I'll have you know I've fathered three children with this!" is what Mullane wanted to shout to the condom-fitting technician but didn't. A complaint might have derailed his selection as an astronaut.

Chosen as a shuttle mission specialist, Mullane flew three missions, logging 356 hours aboard Discovery and Atlantis.

The shuttle never lived up to its billing as a reliable space workhorse, and the fleet has been grounded since the Columbia crash, except for one shakedown flight to the International Space Station last summer.

Even then, the same problem that plagued Columbia -- falling foam insulation that struck the orbiter on launch -- recurred, prompting more trouble-shooting. The next shuttle launch is tentatively set for May.

Mullane acknowledged that the shuttle's ability to lift heavy loads into orbit made such marvels as the space station and the Hubble Space Telescope possible.

The three remaining shuttles are supposed to retire in 2010 after completing construction on the orbiting space station, which has been operating with a skeleton crew of two since the Columbia accident.

A replacement for the shuttles is being designed. One version would look a lot like the big stacked rockets that sent Apollo astronauts to the Moon, a design Mullane agreed could work, so long as there is a powered-flight escape system.

And yes, he would go again if he could. But he acknowledged that he would not be essential to any shuttle mission now, and for that reason, he should not be on the flight.

Copyright 2006 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.