[X] My Assistant

[RedSky]

Here, supposedly, is a sneek peak at the upcoming... not yet released... report on the CEV/ Return to the Moon architecture:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/graph...07/18731963.jpg

Here's the full article:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom...=orl-home-promo

Look familiar? Basically an Apollo CSM (=CEV), a beefed up LM (4-man... but I'm sure due to budget and weight... will be cut back to 3 or 2 person).

Instead of one launch on a Saturn V equivalent, there is a crew launch CEV on a single SRB "stick" configuration, and the S4B-LM piece on the shuttle-derived vertical in-line cargo launcher... Seen here, for those who haven't run across this site yet:

http://www.safesimplesoon.com/media-images.htm

[OWW]

What would be the purpose of a moonbase? You're stuck in one place. Sure, with a rover you can drive around a bit but that's it.
If the goal of the new program is to explore the many interesting sites Apollo couldn't get to, building a base is a waste of money imho.

Returning to the moon and sustaining a presence there will demonstrate humans can survive on another world, and will build confidence that astronauts can venture still farther into space and stay for longer periods. NASA's return to the moon will open opportunities for fundamental science in astrobiology, lunar geology, exobiology, astronomy and physics

Sounds to me the ISS could do much of that as well, before all the science was cut. Only difference is on the ISS the astronauts receive smaller doses of radiation and can return to Earth more safely.

Now, I'm all for exploring the moon, but these arguments for a moonbase are crazy.

[gallen_53]

What would be the purpose of a moonbase? You're stuck in one place. Sure, with a rover you can drive around a bit but that's it.
If the goal of the new program is to explore the many interesting sites Apollo couldn't get to, building a base is a waste of money imho.
Sounds to me the ISS could do much of that as well, before all the science was cut. Only difference is on the ISS the astronauts receive smaller doses of radiation and can return to Earth more safely.

Now, I'm all for exploring the moon, but these arguments for a moonbase are crazy. 

Most of us have heard the funny story about the camel poking his nose into the tent. I see this Apollo rerun as an example of the camel poking his nose into the tent. Quite frankly, I'd much prefer NASA to skip the moon and proceed directly to a manned Mars program (it would be cheaper in the long run to do this). However it is quite clear that proceeding directly to Mars is politically impossible. It is also quite clear that remaining in LEO with the useless ISS and dangerous Space Shuttle are prescriptions for the Space Program's termination. Doing this stupid moon thing and then evolving it into a viable Solar System exploration program seems to be the only option that is politically viable. The future course of action is clear: First get people on the Moon for short visits. Initially talk about lunar bases and resources but then side line that after the lunar landing technology has been demonstrated. Morph that technology into an asteroid exploration program, using NEO protection as the political justification. Work our way out to Phobos and Demos. We then establish a base on one of those moons. From a martian moon, we then go down to the Martian surface. Once on Mars, we establish a permanent presence on Mars based upon in situ resources.

This process is loaded with technical and political booby traps. These are the two worst:

1) We lock ourselves into a technology that only works for lunar exploration (this killed Apollo).

2) We believe our own propaganda that the Moon is a legitimate destination for permanet bases and large scale exploration.

Avoiding booby trap 1) is going to be really hard. The Apollo Command Module (CM) has a fairly poor lift-over-drag ratio and a very narrow entry corridor for Earth return. The CM barely worked for the Apollo program and could not work for Mars return. If we lock ourselves into an Apollo CM clone for the CEV then We are Screwed!! The R&D costs to upgrade the CEV for Mars return will probably be politically unjustifiable. We'd be locked into lunar exploration only and that's probably not politically sustainable.

Booby trap 2) is a real killer. This is like saying the Space Shuttle will provide cheap and reliable access to Space --or-- the ISS will be the 21st century's premiere science laboratory. The system keeps repeating the same lie over-and-over again until it can't escape from it (the downside of Goebbel's strategy). Then the fig leaf falls aways as it did after Columbia burned up and we (the space exploration community) are left standing there naked in front of God and everyone. It is vital that lunar exploration be rapidly transitioned into asteroid exploration (no bases on the moon!). However that won't be possible if we're restricted to only lunar exploration by our Earth return technology.

Decisions are being made now that will determine the long term viability of the Space Program (both manned and unmanned). I fear that the easy choices that we are making now will ultimately kill the Space Program.

Gary

[dvandorn]

The Apollo Command Module (CM) has a fairly poor lift-over-drag ratio and a very narrow entry corridor for Earth return.  The CM  barely worked for the Apollo program and could not work for Mars return.

From where do you get this? The Apollo CM worked marvelously well for lunar return. And at translunar speeds (and Mars-return speeds, as well) your entry corridor for a non-fatal entry would be identical for a winged vehicle that has a lot of cross-range capability as it would for a blunt re-entry body with only a limited amount of lift.

And you pay the weight penalty for taking those wings (or whatever extra mass you load on to achieve greater lift and greater cross-range capability) all the way to Mars and back. THAT is what would be crazy.

When you're coming back from Mars, you don't really want to have to worry about whether or not you can hit the centerline on a runway somewhere. You just want to get safely down onto any ocean or desert or prairie that's flat enough to allow for a safe landing.

Besides, the entry corridor on the Earth end of the trip is actually no more stringent in terms of accuracy than the MOI corridor -- especially if you use aerobraking to help you insert yourself into Mars orbit.

Again, what are your sources for insisting that the CM design "barely" survived lunar return and is incapable of surviving a return from Mars?

-the other Doug