The intention is to have a full airlock. I would imagine that we would be seeing 2, 2-person shifts on EVA (in spite of the artist's representations). While one shift is on the surface for 7 hours - the other is sleeping for 7 hours. This would result in almost 100 hours of 2-person lunar surface EVA time in 1 week, 200 hours in 2 weeks, etc.

That is a BIG change from Apollo. One Constellation mission would be doing almost as much as the surface time of all of the Apollo lunar surface missions combined.

The big change this project has over Apollo is the much larger and more powerful lunar lander. This is in my mind the program's largest saving grace. I am a bit surprised that no one here has picked up on that. This is a BIG lander compared to Apollo and has HUGE expansion capabilities.

.

Doug, I’m gonna call you on this.

It seems that you have really been down on this plan from the get-go – and that’s OK, because everyone is entitled to an opinion. But, I see it is to the point of your colouring reality a bit here. Mike Griffin wanted to be the NASA administrator specifically because of the challenge and opportunity to lead the agency through the VSE (at least the beginnings) and the necessary re-invention of NASA, development of Constellation spacecraft, launch vehicles, and systems. He is making huge changes to the agency with his own personal stamp because he wants the process done his way – and this is because he really believes in this objective. This is not a man unenthusiastically or begrudgingly carrying out orders because the President of the United States ordered it to be done – as you have unequivocally implied. He is behind this thing 1000%. Your take on Griffin’s attitude to the program is just plain incorrect. If he sounded unenthusiastic, it is because he is putting in 12 to 15 hour days and is tired. He didn’t have this last weekend off.

However, like I also said – everyone is entitled to an opinion. Whether this is the right thing to do is still open to opinion – as long as folks have their basic understanding of things correct – and that is the key. So, might I issue a challenge here. For those naysayers I ask you this: when you criticize, what do you think is a better alternative in carrying out this objective? Be realistic here as well. You still must follow the same realities that NASA must follow:

1) Modest or no budget increase for NASA.

2) Must “finish” the Space Station to some degree.

3) Must replace the Shuttle (or at least the Orbiter).

4) Must show some tangible results in 5-15 years.

5) Must be able to garner political support.

6) Must recognize realpolitiks of international cooperation.

On broader terms, if you don’t agree with the scope, objectives, or implications of the VSE then you can also state your case as to whether the VSE is even an appropriate objective:

1) Should Americans return to the Moon?

2) Should Americans go to Mars?

3) Should they just keep going with the Space Station?

4) Should they abandon human spaceflight all together?

5) Does America as a society have what it takes to even do this sort of thing any more?

As for me, I do not love all things about this program – I am no cheerleader. But I feel that it isn’t gonna get any better than this it terms of the future of human spaceflight. The programs as laid out is fairly conservative, but is technologically sound and safe as can reasonably be. After the Shuttle, lower risk must be a key factor. It is also has expansion opportunities for the future: if things do go well, more can be done with this program. I do not know if the social and political support for this program will remain strong enough for the next 10-15 years, but I am very sure that any other proposal that would have been more ambitious – and more expensive – would not survive.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

New Cowling article (part 2), this time focusing on the process used to go with development of the new very heavy-lift LV.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1057

This is going to be a Saturn 5 class launcher. The version selected will be what was once called "Magnum" in delevopment studies years ago. A very powerful vehicle with large growth potential (ultimatly 200MT to LEO (!)).

As for the concerns of others concerning SRB safety for the other mid-heavy LV (known as "The Stick") to be developed for the CEV, remember that the STS SRB is one of the best understood LV stages ever built (if not the best), is already man-rated, and has the best launch success rate of any large LV stage flown more than 100 times (almost 230 flights - 1 failure). The 3.3 million pound thrust number bantered around is because they will add additional segments to the SRB - thus increasing it's thrust. Same will go for the very heavy LV that will use the same SRB's as strap-ons.

.

.

.

Well, yes it true that the main sticking point in the Soviet lunar program’s inability to get the job done was the launch vehicle, when speaking in the strictest of terms. However, the whole Soviet scheme was VERY weak when compared to Apollo, and there were many other places besides the booster in the Soviet Lunar mission plan that might (or likley would) have caused a mission failure. The booster was just the largest of many weak points. With a few exceptions, everything in the Soviet program was much more primitive than Apollo in terms of technology development and robustness, yet was excessively complicated in areas that would not gladly tolerate such things (such as two separate descent propulsion stages for the lander). To look into the interior of the Soviet lander or mothership (a beefed up Soyuz) is to look into something more akin to a 1930’s submarine rather than a late 1960’s spacecraft. I half expect to see Captain Nemo flying the LK instead of Alexi Leonov – who might have been the first person on the Moon in a different timeline had everything gone perfectly for them. In terms of sophistocation, robustness, redundency, and technical development, Apollo looked like the starship Enterprise compared to these spacecraft. Mr. Leonov would have been a very brave man indeed if he had got the chance to succeed instead of Neil Armstrong.

I strongly suggest learning more on the subject for anyone interested – it is a fascinating subject on what was the riskiest and most longshot manned space mission design ever conceived. But boy, it would have been really cool to have seen them actually pull it off.

Good links for any who are interested:

http://www.astronautix.com/articles/sovpart2.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/soy7klok.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lk.htm

http://www.myspacemuseum.com/eurolk.htm

http://www.deepcold.com/deepcold/lk_main.html

.

.

.

.

I understand where you are coming from here. The Spacecraft Films products are without a doubt the best existing visual records of the Gemini and Apollo flights - but they are of course from an Astronaut's/Mission Control point of view. The great advantage of this is of course that you get to see and hear the mission as it happened uninterrupted and unfiltered.

Of course it however cannot reproduce the flavor of the moment that each person experienced viewing the events through the looking glass of the media and popular culture - which of course was all most folks had access to at the time. That is something quite different. It is this experience, however filtered and presented by the television networks, that we have the memories of. I would think that if you are looking to rekindle that personal experience, you might try contacting the television networks about their video records of their presentations of the Apollo missions. Although the actual television downlink of the missions are of course public domain, the television network's presentation of them, and the accompanying commentary, would I think be network property. Walter Cronkite = CBS.