The results are in on NASA's current planning for How We'll get back to the Moon, the next step toward making President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) a reality.
I like that it has up to 6 flight s a year and can land 4 people at at time on the Moon. I like that Dr. Griffen talks about all the science that can be done on the Moon. While there are few details on what exactly we will do on the Moon at least we haven't been limited by small ideas.
I do have some concerns.
1. Two launches required per lunar Mission - I believe this will be more dangerous than single launch missions do to the pressure to launch so as not to waste the equipment from the first launch. Also 2 launches have twice the failure rate as one launch.
2. The launch system is shuttle derived- The shuttle is not safe, this new system uses the same hard ware and maintains the same culture. The hardware and culture which has cost us 14 lives.
3. Polar site for base- The light conditions seem to make this a less than idea spot to put a base.
4. Crew Excursion vehicle reuseable 10 times- is this worth making it reusable, is it worth the required inspections?
5. Methane fueled lunar lander- this is great for Mars but how good is it for long term use of lunar derived fuels? how hard would it be to switch to something which could be lunar derived after this system has been thoroughly tested for Mars.
I agree with most of your statements about the new "back to the moon" scenario. I do disagree with the shuttle tech question some what. With an inline orientation the foam problem is eliminated. Granted it is still a Solid Rocket Booster with the benfits/riskd involved. That I can't deny
I think a bigger issue is the development of a "Apollo on Steroids" approach. If you read some articles on Astronautix.com Mark Wade makes a fairly convincing arguement for a more Soyuz/Shenzhou approach.
Chris
Posted by: Chris | February 06, 2006 at 10:01 PM