It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
NEWS: NASA's New Moon Plans: 'Apollo on Steroids'
page: 17
share:
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has unveiled NASA's plans to land four astronauts on the surface of the Moon in 2018. The $104-billion plan calls
for an Apollo-like vehicle to carry crews of up to four astronauts to the Moon for seven-day stays on the lunar surface. "Think of it as Apollo on
steroids," Griffin said as he unveiled the agency's lunar exploration plan during a much-anticipated press conference at its Washington, D.C.-based
headquarters.
www.space.com
NASA's space shuttle program is set to retire in 2010, with the first CEV launch targeted for no later than 2014, though an internal deadline is tentatively set for 2012, Griffin said. The 2012 launch and 2018 Moon landing targets should allow NASA to achieve the space vision laid out by President George W. Bush in 2004, which called for a return of humans to the Moon by no later than 2020, Griffin added.
Capped with an escape tower, the capsule would launch atop an in-line booster and rendezvous with an Earth Departure Stage and lunar lander in Earth orbit, which themselves would launch atop a separate, heavy-lift rocket. Both launchers will be derived from external tank, shuttle engine and solid rocket booster technology developed for the orbiter program, with power for the CEV to be provided via solar arrays.
Like the Apollo missions, the CEV capsule would jettison its service module and return to Earth under parachutes, but will also use airbag cushions, retrorockets or other means to land on the ground at a West Coast location. Apollo astronauts landed at sea.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Well its about time...
After Bush's speech last year about wanting to return to the Moon and then to Mars, i thought the idea would just fizzle out and never happen due to budget cuts etc...
But they actually seem to be putting real plans inplace for these missions.
Hopefully we'll soon be seeing man exploring the solar system again!
www.space.com
NASA's space shuttle program is set to retire in 2010, with the first CEV launch targeted for no later than 2014, though an internal deadline is tentatively set for 2012, Griffin said. The 2012 launch and 2018 Moon landing targets should allow NASA to achieve the space vision laid out by President George W. Bush in 2004, which called for a return of humans to the Moon by no later than 2020, Griffin added.
Capped with an escape tower, the capsule would launch atop an in-line booster and rendezvous with an Earth Departure Stage and lunar lander in Earth orbit, which themselves would launch atop a separate, heavy-lift rocket. Both launchers will be derived from external tank, shuttle engine and solid rocket booster technology developed for the orbiter program, with power for the CEV to be provided via solar arrays.
Like the Apollo missions, the CEV capsule would jettison its service module and return to Earth under parachutes, but will also use airbag cushions, retrorockets or other means to land on the ground at a West Coast location. Apollo astronauts landed at sea.
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Well its about time...
After Bush's speech last year about wanting to return to the Moon and then to Mars, i thought the idea would just fizzle out and never happen due to budget cuts etc...
But they actually seem to be putting real plans inplace for these missions.
Hopefully we'll soon be seeing man exploring the solar system again!
Good post, might also want to include this link:
www.nasa.gov...
Official Nasa site with info about how it's gonna happen, a basic flight plan, etc.
www.nasa.gov...
Official Nasa site with info about how it's gonna happen, a basic flight plan, etc.
This is great and I really hope it all goes forward. Maybe they will even go and visit the old landing sites. Perhaps the Apollo hoax to rest finally?
I love NASA, but this is a total publicity stunt on their part. Whether it is to gain interest with the general public or with the legislative branch,
it will not work on me. I enjoy NASA with its current motto of 'smaller, cheaper, faster', this allows a multitude of projects with different ranges
exist and function.
I can't see any reason to sacrifice 10%+ of the annual budget to send men to the moon. We went there once and found it is a barren rock.
I can't see any reason to sacrifice 10%+ of the annual budget to send men to the moon. We went there once and found it is a barren rock.
Originally posted by Frosty
I can't see any reason to sacrifice 10%+ of the annual budget to send men to the moon. We went there once and found it is a barren rock.
Since then we have found that the moon has a rather large supply of Helium-3 which is quite rare on earth.
Helium-3 is perfect fuel for nuclear fusion and is expected to be the cleanest fuel of choice for potential 21st century fusion reactors.
I think going back to the moon is a good idea because of Helium-3, but if we're ever going to make use of it, we're going to have to do alot better
than this. Almost 40 years after the Apollo program and we're doing the exact same thing? Come on. Putting 4 men on the moon at a time isn't exactly
a huge step towards a permanent moon base.
This is basically just going to be people walking around on the moon taking pictures. If we're going to go there, we should DO something.
This is basically just going to be people walking around on the moon taking pictures. If we're going to go there, we should DO something.
Lame. We are going to have to rely on the private sector if we want to achieve anything in space, not monolithic governmental beuracracies.
Another decade and a half to get back to the moon, when we were there 40 years ago, something doesn't add up.
Another decade and a half to get back to the moon, when we were there 40 years ago, something doesn't add up.
Yeah the Helium 3 issue is big, plus the moon would be a perfect base for further launches to Mars and beyond.
What's all this helium-3 talk? Is this the 'only' potential source for fusion power? Whatever happened to hydrogen?
Currently there are no fusion reactors in the world. In fact, the first will not be built until 2016, and has yet to be seen if that plant will even operate. So why then gear up a $100+ billion project for one moon mission to collect He-3 which we have no idea as to whether it will even be useful.
Could someone please provide links to current He-3 fusion reactor reasearch? I can't find any...
Currently there are no fusion reactors in the world. In fact, the first will not be built until 2016, and has yet to be seen if that plant will even operate. So why then gear up a $100+ billion project for one moon mission to collect He-3 which we have no idea as to whether it will even be useful.
Could someone please provide links to current He-3 fusion reactor reasearch? I can't find any...
This is what I don't get, my cell phone has more technology in it to run 10 spaceships in 1969, why does it take so much now?
Much too little. Probably way too late.
We should already have had a permemant base on the Moon 10 years ago. This country would not have the will to do the Apollo missions today if the enormous risk were made public. We are too afraid and too inefficent.
We should already have had a permemant base on the Moon 10 years ago. This country would not have the will to do the Apollo missions today if the enormous risk were made public. We are too afraid and too inefficent.
Originally posted by Frosty
Could someone please provide links to current He-3 fusion reactor reasearch? I can't find any...
www.space.com...
Nasa can't get the shuttle to lift off in one piece, why would they want to spend that kind of money to go where we have already been, another
example of a government agency wanting their cut of the never ending supply of tax dollars
Helium-3 is a potential energy source, but right now it is a dream. Until we have a large system set up to deliver Helium-3 to the earth it will not
be anywhere near practical. The better solution would be to invest in sonofusion or Boron-Hydrogen(focus fusion) until we can return to the moon, and
by then would be really need it?
Originally posted by Frosty
Currently there are no fusion reactors in the world. In fact, the first will not be built until 2016, and has yet to be seen if that plant will even operate. So why then gear up a $100+ billion project for one moon mission to collect He-3 which we have no idea as to whether it will even be useful.
There are a few fusion reactors already though they are really just test reactors. Shiva and Nova reactors at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories and TFTR at Princeton for example.
As for Helium-3 this might give you a impression on just how important it could be. Its estimated About 25 tonnes of He3 would power the United States for 1 year at our current rate of energy consumption. As a replacement for that fuel, that 25-tonne load of He3 would worth on the order of $75 billion today, or $3 billion per tonne.
www.asi.org...
so one 25 tone load and the cost of builing the new systems allmost are out.
[edit on 20-9-2005 by MarkLuitzen]
[edit on 20-9-2005 by MarkLuitzen]
As much as I am in favor of returning to the moon, this Helium-3 thing has the potential to be a big boondoggle. How do you seperate if from Moon
rock? How do you get the machinery you need to seperate it to the Moon? Do you have any idea how much rock you would need to process to get 25 tons
of the stuff? We are going back to the Moon for one simple reason, to reclaim it. There was a treaty ratified by the UN back in the 60's that
declared that the Moon and other celestial entities belonged to no one country. Problem is that China didn't ratify the treaty. The US is going
back to the Moon to prevent China from laying claim to it.
How can anyone believe China is going to claim the moon Thats alittle presumptuous for a country that is decades off from even landing Taikonaut
one on the moon.
Hey China didnt sign the Antarctic Treaty either does that mean they are going to claim Antartic too
Hey China didnt sign the Antarctic Treaty either does that mean they are going to claim Antartic too
Originally posted by Sigma
Helium-3 is a potential energy source, but right now it is a dream. Until we have a large system set up to deliver Helium-3 to the earth it will not be anywhere near practical.
well.. disregarding that this thread has left the original topic...
all you need are some small vessels that have a very primitave remote guidance system, minimal fuel for thrusters, and parachutes. and there you have it... low cost transport.
then simply load the transports with the materials at the source, seal it up, give it a solid push to escape the moons gravity and off it goes, floating back to earth.
daved
new topics
top topics
-
What if this is true?
2024 Elections: 15 hours ago, 14 flags -
Ed Dowd some good news
Medical Issues & Conspiracies: 14 hours ago, 7 flags -
Merry-Go-Round Ride
Short Stories: 17 hours ago, 6 flags -
Anyone like the Scorpions?
Music: 14 hours ago, 4 flags
active topics
-
Ed Dowd some good news
Medical Issues & Conspiracies • 25 • : BedevereTheWise -
Jaguar Rebrand Video Causes "WTF?" Moment - Seriously Weird
Automotive Discussion • 35 • : Owlwatcher -
Man Stabbed or Cardiac arrest on Westminster Bridge, London, UK
Mainstream News • 10 • : theatreboy -
President-Elect DONALD TRUMP's 2nd-Term Administration Takes Shape.
Political Ideology • 247 • : RazorV66 -
Results of the use of the Oreshnik missile system in Dnepropetrovsk
World War Three • 225 • : Xtrozero -
A fix for the Trans players in sports
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 20 • : Xtrozero -
Anyone like the Scorpions?
Music • 10 • : CriticalStinker -
Russia Ukraine Update Thread - part 3
World War Three • 6885 • : ufoorbhunter -
Petition Calling for General Election at 564,016 and rising Fast
Political Issues • 69 • : Freeborn -
Merry-Go-Round Ride
Short Stories • 6 • : Encia22
7