greg hughes - dot net

Security, IT and anything else that matters... to me, that is

Back to the Moon - bigger, cheaper, faster?

Monday, September 19, 2005 8:06:01 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00) ( Random Stuff )

Main_docked_330 NASA's latest plans to return to the moon, and from there to go on to Mars, are now out, with more detail available. The spacecraft look a bit like the old Apollo ships, but looks can be deceiving:

"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."

Add/Read: Comments [2]

Random Stuff

Bookmark with:

Delicious

Digg

Facebook

StumbleUpon

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 11:13:57 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)

Hmmm...

Bigger, faster, cheaper? From the story, it seems like it will take us longer (~13 years to first landing), and cost us more. And bigger can possibly refer to a bigger presence on the moon, but is far more likely to refer to a bloated program.

And seriously, does anyone think that a pie-in-lunar-orbit idea like this is going to (a) survive the congressional scalpel, (b) last in it's final form through 3 more presidential administrations, and (c) really show big government science and engineering is nimbler than the entrepreneurial space programs of SpaceX and others?

All best,
Lacie

Lacie Thurston

Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:17:35 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)

That was supposed to be a little sarcastic, the headline that is. I think the private sector will do amazing things, but it's also exciting to see NASA thinking more aggressively about the future. But you're right - the provate sector can certainly do it faster, for less and more efficiently. :)

Greg

Comments are closed.