New Apollo for 21st Century

grandadjohn wrote:

... ISS has assembly area for future spacecraft

The ISS was never intended to be used as an assembly site.  It is meant to be laboratories.  To make experiences that will help go further in space exploration but I doubt that its lifespan is long enough to see the outer planet exploration era.

I don't care that the CEV resembles Apollo. JUST GO! And furthermore, STAY! Robert Heinlein had it right in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress: if you are at the top of the gravity well, you are Immune. If for no other reason than security, we'll be back up there.

But I have a sneaking hunch that somebody like Burt Rutan is going to really lead the way in the future. The next Bill Gates will be space or nano-oriented ( or a combo of both ).

My regret is that I will never live out my childhood dream to be a colonist on Mars.

72cuda wrote:

The Apollo/Saturn launch system is of the old throw away technology, you have a launch vehicle that's 365 ft tall and only 13 ft of that comes back, and the Space Shuttle is of the mid-throw away technology the main vehicle and boosters can be reused but the External Tank is wasted

Actually most of the vehicle must be dismantle and replaced after each mission, spending a lot of working time and cost as much as Apollo mission. So they find out that it is cheaper to let it burn in the atmosphere.

I'm pretty sure the new CEV will be reliable and very effective and can't wait to see it "fly".

Chuck Fan Said: "This new CEV thing is like Christopher Columbus, after having discovered America 20 years ago, saying "I bet we can discover America again if we use replicas of the same three ships we used last time".    The age of Apollo style CEV is over.   We don't have the will to go forward, and like to pretend we didn't back out by doing the same thing over and over."

"What do you mean 'we' paleface?"

We [American/Humanity inclusive in this case] made 6 successful landings on the lunar surface, brought back around 300+ pounds of rock samples and land mapped a few corners of the closest celestial body we have...

"Discover again?"  Gee whiz, Chuck, hate space travel lately?

Bill Nye [yes, The Science Guy] mentioned back a few years when this plan came out that "we'd learned all there was to know about the moon- so there's no reason to go back".

Okay- with that logic, next time you go swimming in the Pacific or Atlantic, there's never a reason to go SCUBA diving or boating, because we've already learned all we need to know about the oceans.

Bill I can excuse because as a scientist he only sees beyond the edge of his own microscope- in the extreme fringe of scientific politics, most scientists will rebuff another's work especially if it means funding for one can be ripped out of competing hands and given to the one squeaking loud enough...  Bill's jealous because he has nothing to contribute to manned spaceflight and is thusly ignored outside of children's shows.

"There's never a reason to discover America again"- so why did travellers ever make the journey; let alone keep coming back?  If pirates, storms, scurvy or god knows what else didn't get you, the rewards to be had [and to present to the royals providing teh money for the trip] weren't enough to make it "worthwhile"...

There's something to be said for Granduer.  There's something to be said for being there.  There's something to be said for proving you can do it again and make it look everyday.

In today's financial and socio-economic world, sure, the goal doesn't seem terribly pragmatic- but it's no more or less pragmatic than in the 1960s/70s.  The comparable price to put man on the moon originally would be no different by today's  standard.

Apollo is in the past- I've got no problem accepting that.  [Well- okay- yes I do, but this is an older man talking...] 

Will the new CEV look a lot like Apollo?  Sure.  It's a proven technology- heaven forbid we use something that actually has proven itself.

Have we used wooden canoes to travel over water?  Sure.  It too, is a proven technology- but it doesn't fit the needs of today- especially if we were headed out over the ocean and expect to stay there for a while- it's the same thing with the new CEV.

If tomorrow NASA were to press forward to become a governing "policing" arm and that from here on out all manned spaceflight- including the lunar landing- was to be done in the private sector, there'd be some floundering, but I doubt it would be too long before [Virgin Aerospace anyone?] someone would pick up the haleberd and begin the march into space and most definitely the moon.

There's pleanty of will to move forward on this- 2 aerospace companies are ponying up their own money to develop prototype mock-ups for governmental scrutiny; in today's money conscious business world, do you think they are fools for 'moving ahead'?  I'll be certain to tell the CEOs of the companies your interpretation, I'm sure they'll drop everything and get back to making airplanes- which, why should they do even that- the concept of the 'wing' is 'old technology'- since it's "the same old thing they used last time" obviously it's not innovative enough to keep on using, now is it...

H3 and other untapped elements and manufacturing possibilities on the lunar surface won't be discovered if we never go back with the intent on staying.  Similar things were said for The New World around the time of The Renesance.  It was said again when the 13 colonies were established- it'll be remembered by people who make their lives somewhere in Strongville on the Sea of Storms.

Revitalized technology, merged with the tried and true will have hard-hat workers on the lunar surface some time just before my time on this earth is over. 

Seeing adults accomplishing the impossible back in 1969 was exhillerating.

Seeing 'children' making the impossible commonplace will be a testiment.

I believe in The US.  I believe in the youth of today.

Do you?

Galleons, are not kogges, this is true; however they were the precurseors to the galleons. The Cev is not Apollo, but it will be similar in design. As for Mr. Columbus, well, does it matter what he thought he discovered?

sb36 wrote:

Chuck Fan wrote: This new CEV thing is like Christopher Columbus, after having discovered America 20 years ago, saying "I bet we can discover America again if we use replicas of the same three ships we used last time".    The age of Apollo style CEV is over.   We don't have the will to go forward, and like to pretend we didn't back out by doing the same thing over and over. The funny thing is they did sail back to America 20 years later in almost the same type of ships, in fact Gallions became the main component of the tresure fleets of Spain and Portugal, it's the type of ship that Magellian used, and De Soto, Deleon, and Cortez, and lets see oh yeah John Cabot, and Henry Hudson, most of the "new world" was first charted by gallions, a venerable, and reliable ship, maybe we need to lern a lession about human exploration from these ships. Though there were many variations, they were essentially the same design. Apollo on steroids? You bet.

Chuck Fan wrote:

This new CEV thing is like Christopher Columbus, after having discovered America 20 years ago, saying "I bet we can discover America again if we use replicas of the same three ships we used last time".    The age of Apollo style CEV is over.   We don't have the will to go forward, and like to pretend we didn't back out by doing the same thing over and over.

The Apollo/Saturn launch system is of the old throw away technology, you have a launch vehicle that's 365 ft tall and only 13 ft of that comes back, and the Space Shuttle is of the mid-throw away technology the main vehicle and boosters can be reused but the External Tank is wasted a 30' x 100 some odd ft object that is burnt up on re-entry, what NASA needs to do is use the technology from the A/S system most likely the J-5, & F-5 engines and convert them to run on LOX/LOH instead of LOX/RP4 (JP-4 for those airplane mechanics out there) then the research for a 1.25 Mil PT engine is done, compaired to the Shuttles 3 at .75 Mil PT each and also use some of the technology from the LEM's for landing on the Moon and acenting back into space, but then we need to set up a long term base there so we could get to the weird types of materials that the Moon has to offer, as for the need for the funds is to get Congress off their worthless butts and quite pointing fingers who did who or who did what on the War on Terror, Yes we need to think about the folks over there fighting but we need to show them what they are fighting for, with a great step into technology and another step for mankind, and leave all those 4th century thinkers behind another pot hole on the road to humanity, The Americans have always lead the way for gaining technology since the mid 19th century, and we just need a little push from the people to kick start their congress person to get on the wagon and back NASA and push them to start cutting the edge of technology instead of riding it like the others

cdclukey wrote:

Griz wrote: What happens when good old Mother Earth can no longer support the population (we have already passed that point)?  Mankind is going to have to either move underwater or somewhere else.  Moving underwater won't change things from Earths standpoint (we didn't do so well on the surface), so either mass extinctions of the human population are going to have to occur or we need to find some place else to go. Griz, you and many others in our society have been sold a bill of goods when it comes to this view of population growth. There is no such crisis. See the entry on Thomas Malthus at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus

I wonder what the good Reverend would think today?  He's only been dead 172 years.  Not interested in getting on a soap box, just going back to the moon and beyond.

Nobody sold me anything, this is my opinion.  As long as we have war, tsunamis, drought, ethnic cleansing, and other lovely disasters both natural and man made, you're probably right.

DanCooper wrote:

Sure blame us for being ninja looters than, we may not put as much money in it, but we put our technology in, doesn't that count for something ?

If the moon shot is such a great idea, let's let the EU design and finance the project and we in the US can reap the benefits of the spin-off technologies.

The question is not whether going back to the moon will generate new technologies.  It will.  The question is whether we would be better off putting the money into the technology directly and foregoing the mission to the moon.  If that's a bit too extreme, let's design the mission, materials and all, then just transfer the technology and forget the mission.  If actually flying the mission is going to pay such high dividends, surely other countries will jump to do it.

As far as the moon having new minerals and riches just waiting to be discovered, all I can say is that there has been no real indication of it on the previous missions.

Hey, I am a professional science geek myself, but I feel a lot of scientific research is in an innovation black hole owing to the inefficient "old boy" network   I once saw a decent grant proposal from one of my coworkers rejected with a statement that essentially said, "We know everybody who is somebody in this field, and we don't know you, so you can't know what you are doing and therefore we won't fund your project."  I'd be highly surprised if NASA is much better.  In the old days they were looking for true innovation, but there are too many big hogs at the trough now.

Sorry this is wondering off topic, but I'd be willing to bet a crate of Atomic City Mercury capsules that we don't establish anything like a moon base anytime in this century.  I'll be surprised if the US ever goes back.  Personally, I'm ambivalent.  On the gut level, I love big, powerful things like Saturn Vs; on the intellectual level I am dubious that it will yield any technology not available from cheaper sources, and as an individual taxpayer, I suspect I may get more personal bang for my buck designing and shooting model rockets in the field across from my house.

GrandadJohn and Mopar Maniac--

Iagree wholeheartedly that we will reap huge tech benefits from returning to the moon. I know my brother's life was saved by space program spinoff technology after he was in a major car crash. For instance, CAT scans were developed to check spacecraft panels for cracks, and without a CAT, the doctors wouldn't have been able to treat his brain injury properly. 

Griz wrote:

What happens when good old Mother Earth can no longer support the population (we have already passed that point)?  Mankind is going to have to either move underwater or somewhere else.  Moving underwater won't change things from Earths standpoint (we didn't do so well on the surface), so either mass extinctions of the human population are going to have to occur or we need to find some place else to go.

Griz, you and many others in our society have been sold a bill of goods when it comes to this view of population growth. There is no such crisis. See the entry on Thomas Malthus at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus

DanCooper wrote:

.....we're not in 60's and 70's anymore, we have plastics, we have velcro we have thermal isolation.....Somewhere between the lines I red that the new moon-project would cost 108 billion dollar !.......how much would rebuilding New Orleans cost with better prevention against future disasters ?

Before we had plastics and velcro we didn't know that they were possible.  What is out there now that we don't know is possible?  Before Mankind started exploring the world, each culture thought that nothing really exsisted outside their realm.  No one really knew what was beyond the mountians, river, ocean, etc.  If we don't explore we will never know and learn.  I believe that it is important for us to go beyond our bounds and find all of those things that don't exsit.  Without the space program we would have very little warning of storms like hurricane Katrina.  I am sure that New Orleans will rebuild weather we go back to the Moon or not.  The more important question to ask is how much will it cost if we don't continue to explore.

Mac

DanCooper wrote:

Ok, I agree, we have lots of things that came out of the space programms, but we're not in 60's and 70's anymore, we have plastics, we have velcro we have thermal isolation. Somewhere between the lines I red that the new moon-project would cost 108 billion dollar ! Now, I'm not an American and I'm not personally involved neither am I in any pollitical movement, but how much would rebuilding New Orleans cost with better prevention against future disasters ? Wouldn't those billions be spent better on that and other projects to help people who need it ? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a hippy (although I have nothing against them) but (and I'm sure many of you won't like to hear this) have a look at the economy and the social security in your country. I'm all for space exploration, heck it's exiting, it's thrilling, but there are more important issues to deal with first.

At the risk of sounding like a "commie-pinko-blankblank," our history of policing the world in the last century was due to economic interests.  Economic interests are what provides the budget that goes into our "first world advances" ie. medicine, space exploration, etc.

It's a fact, our involvement in the world has been what keeps us ahead of the game in all things.

We were sold a bad bill of goods with the shuttle.  We should have stuck to Von Braun's proposals, we could be alot further away from Earth than orbit.  the fact that Nasa's new spacecraft looks like an Apollo on steriods proves that we had the right concept 40+ years ago.  We had a damn space station that was only used three times and was allowed to re-enter the atmosphere.  I think we should stopp policing the rest of the damn planet and put the money into an investment in the future.

What happens when good old Mother Earth can no longer support the population (we have already passed that point)?  Mankind is going to have to either move underwater or somewhere else.  Moving underwater won't change things from Earths standpoint (we didn't do so well on the surface), so either mass extinctions of the human population are going to have to occur or we need to find some place else to go.