The next lunar lander

John D. Goodwin — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:38:05 GMT

Going to the moon this time around will be much less stressful than the last time. Having been a part of the Apollo team from beginning to end, one thing we could have said back then with a great deal of certainty was, " Ain't been there, ain't done that ". Today, we don't have the mindset we had then. " GO forth and conquer ". However, we have very capable people today and given the data derived from Apollo and the great strides in technology, we will certainly accomplish our mission.

The next lunar lander

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:50:15 GMT

If I were to ever do something like this, I would ask for proposals from contractors but also stipulate that I (NASA) could pick and chose the best features from any given proposal and combine them into a new proposal. I think we also need to keep brainstorming. Even after you choose a specific lander, keep trying to refine it and develop the next one. In other words, always have one active system and one in development. NEVER STOP! Does anybody remember Space 1999? That is the type of lander that will ultimately be needed to support a moon base! Anything short of that is just planting flags all over again. ---- "future lunar landers COULD BE multipurpose" "You COULD EVEN leave the camper behind for the next truckload of visitors." COULDA SHOULDA WOULDA - and to think this is coming from a professional organization. Um.. Do you think we should figure this out before we hire you? I don't think they even know how many people they want on the surface or what they are going to do when they get there... Only takes one person to plant a flag and hit a golf ball ya know... I would also think that if a crew of four was really what you needed than add a fifth seat for a tourest to help offset the cost. P.S. Does anyone know if ESA's Smart one found any water ice in lunar crators?

The next lunar lander

Rob LeBlanc — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:26:22 GMT

I'd like to see thinking that looks further ahead into the future toward the colonization of the moon and Mars. The word "colonization" is hardly ever heard in conjunction with space.Our civilization needs a new goal and the moon, planets and asteroids could provide that destination.

The next lunar lander

Bill White — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:10:38 GMT

Some follow up comments, here:

http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/
2006/10/lunar-landers.html

The next lunar lander

Edward G. Titterton, III, Phila. Pa. — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:40:50 GMT

Never having written to a blog before, as the great nephew of a Grumann executive in the LM program, the late George F. Titterton, it is gratifying to see that company doing emulating today that 1960's generation. Indeed, that was very much an effort to combine their experience with the vision of the young, to move man forward while pursuing business goals, and repeating a generation later may prove it in the end to be the true and most lasting legacy of Appollo, rather than just that we got there first. In an age when America is thought in some quarters to be in decline, if successful this could well demonstrate otherwise.

The next lunar lander

Jeff Bradley — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:07:21 GMT

Has anyone looked at the Eagle from the old sci-fi show "Space:1999", for inspiration. There was a craft that did a lot of what they're talking about on the lunar surface.

The next lunar lander

vernon virgil vincent, po bx 457, myrtle point, ore. 97458 — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:26:47 GMT

If there was a colapsable air-filled habitate put on the moon for a future lander, would not the added atmosphere of the moon effect the tidal action on earth. Would it be possible to put an oxgen generator there to fill the structure.. I know what I am trying to say, but i do not know the terms that I maybe should be using. I hope you can understand what I am trying to say thank you

The next lunar lander

Douglas Fingles, Warner Robins, GA — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:53:50 GMT

Well, I hope Haslett does not influence the design that Northrop will present. Function takes precedence. I'm not paying NASA to come up with "cool" or "just maybe" stuff, just stuff that does what it's supposed to do, reliably. Frankly, we have no idea what might happen over the next 30 to 40 years and to try to build or design something that's "forward-thinking" for missions not even imagined yet is just hare-brained. Build the darn thing, make sure it meets present requirements, and 10 or 20 or 30 years from now, THEN worry about modifying it to meet some future requirement. And people wonder why government programs consistently overrun their cost projections, and are late to need. It's because of the "Let's add this" mentality that we end up trying to incorporate dozens of new technologies all at once instead of incrementally to a stable platform. NASA should be reminded of the old Russian proverb that I just made up that loosely translates to: "Build first, then modify".

The next lunar lander

cynic — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:39:30 GMT

Great. What we need is a reusable LEM. Let's not have a mission or purpose in mind. Let's just spend billions on some undefined program, and pretend to be high-minded idealists.

The next lunar lander

Doesn't Matter — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 06:39:28 GMT

If we would have put all of the money we spent on wars and pointless weapons, into space exploration, we'd already have a colony there. We need to stop fighting over our own little portion of Earth here and seek out the endless worlds that await us. For the surivial of the human race, we must spread out and seed distant worlds.

The next lunar lander

a p garcia — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:04:10 GMT

NASA sorely needs a PR person the likes of Dr. Wernher Von Braun to help sell "space". I remember a line in the movie "The Right Stuff", "No bucks, no Buck Rogers". Without bucks, everything the Moon may offer is secondary. NASA should have a contest to find such a person. Personally, I favor a young female movie/TV star who has brains and is pretty.

The next lunar lander

Alan Sheets, Loveland CO — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:05:37 GMT

I'm betting that the team that wins the lunar lander challenge contest will be a high school team. All the big companies and university researchers will overthink their technology, but a DYI or small school will build something that will just barely meet the contest requirements, and do it cheaply. Also, I'd bet that the winning design will initially start off as a big platform, some jet engines, and remote control gear from the local hobby shop.

The next lunar lander

Russ Price, Cameron, TX — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:13:03 GMT

"Doesn't Matter"'s point is a mirror image of the oft-quoted rationale given for our laggardly pace in the exploration of our solar system. And besides, its right on. The heart-rending question, "What about all the poor children starving in Asia/Biafra/Sudan/hellhole of your choice?" gets rhetorically asked any time even a single sou is proposed to be spent on space exploration. Well, I hate to break it to the bleeding hearts and this might sound harsh, but the poor WILL always be with us, and I'd much rather my tax dollars be invested in the first baby steps that could get my children and their children off this planet than to feed some stranger's mewling brat who's likely going to grow up to hate me and my country anyway.

The next lunar lander

Gary Miller, Spokane, Wash. — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:34:20 GMT

What seems to be wrong with our space program is the inability to accept that space colonization can be efficient and less expensive, all at the same time. We do need a multi-mission inter-orbit, lunar transfer/lander design. How are we planning to do this? I will almost 'bet' that commericalism (for profit) will end up giving our space mission, three seperate flight/travel craft. I propose we let Lego design our lunar vehicles. Why? All the systems in the lunarm mission should be upgradable and interchangeable. The rationale for this is it takes time, energy and resources to repair mishaps, etc. Imagine a lunar lander and orbiter that can be stripped down to emergency core mechanisms that can 'shed' unneeding components (in an emergency). The 'redundant' parts can be left in lunar orbit or on the moon, and later, re-added to the vehicle(s) or moved into the lunar base design. For example, if done properly, a module on the life-support systems could be recoded and fits into a waste disposal or communications role. Combine VolksWagon Bettle concept with Lego logic integrated blocks, add an emergency blown-up first lander force habitat placed in a sub-surface cave---sounds really 'bad', doesn't it?

The next lunar lander

Mike, Los Angeles, CA — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:32:37 GMT

I think it's hysterical that the Eagle from "Space: 1999" has come up twice here. That's exactly what I thought of too when I read the story. I even have the Corgi metal toy that comes with a detachable "camper for people" Hello!? Don't engineers or scientists ever watch TV?

The next lunar lander

Ray Kirk, Simi Valley, CA — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:19:04 GMT

We spent many billions getting there last time and, although pure science was enlarged, the human condition was not improved much. And, don't give me that crap about "technological spin-offs". They didn't help any poor, starving, dying people that I know about. Why go afar before we have accomplished the most basic human needs on earth? Disease, hunger, population, resource depletion, pollution. These and other subjects are CRYING OUT for help. How insensitive and selfish we can be. I don't want to contribute a single penny to such goals until we can, at the very least, meet the most basic needs of humanity here on earth.

The next lunar lander

Jim Baird — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:09:09 GMT

It would be a waste of resources and dollars to confine any design for a future LM to today's technology. Isn't this the main problem with the Shuttle now? The thing was designed with now obsolete computer technology and thus is operating handicaped with the systems too expensive to update and redesign. Save design selection for actual construction until hard dates are set for implimenting any future lunar missions...

The next lunar lander

Aaron Oesterle — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:31:49 GMT

Ray - you wanna help those people, then I suggest you read something called the The Space Option. Read it here:

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/
why_implementing_the_space_option
_is_necessary_for_society.shtml

Everyone who wonders how space can help people should read this. There is more, and when I find it, I'll be sure to show it to everyone. But this should give you a good idea

The next lunar lander

Joe Stong — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:38:07 GMT

Heh. My dad also worked on the Apollo project. The rest of the planet is not going to stop having political or ideological ambitions because we decide to go exploring again, so it's silly to suggest we gut the DOD to pay for a moon base. But with culture change we could eliminate the federal government's role and expenses in all the "social programs" that suck up far more dollars than defense does...allowing the government to shift those resources towards the stars.

The next lunar lander

Alan Sheets, Loveland CO — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:51:53 GMT

Ray Kirk -- "Disease, hunger, population, resource depletion, pollution" are not problems needing research money; they are merely logistical problems stemming from greed. I'd much rather work on a bunch of solvable problems and stretch our horizons a bit than struggle with a near-permanent and completely human-unsolvable sin condition that will be with humans until the Lord returns. I've done more than my share to save this world; now I'd like to explore the rest of God's creation, if you don't mind.

The next lunar lander

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:47:27 GMT

At some point in any such project, you have to 'freeze' the design, and accept that there will be only minor tinkering with details, unless a major flaw is found that truly requires a major re-design. (Failure to do this is one of the reasons ISS was late and over-budget) The Shuttle's design was frozen in 1972, and much of its technology reflects that, even though there have been major upgrades of some of its systems, consistent with the basic vehicle structure. Anything else you design is also certain to eventually be subject to; 'yeah, if we were doing it today, of course we'd do it differently.' (this is espically true where computers and processing is involved) One day we could have antimatter-energized nuclear thermal rockets...but you can't build around what you don't have (or believe to be doable) now. Trying to better anticipate needs is one thing (if that's what you were trying to say), but how can you possibly build with anything other than 'today's (whatever today may be) technology?' You also don't want to try to design a craft that will be all things to all possible users. (that was another problem with the shuttle) Accept that a future LM should be able to do a certain range of things well, and something that must do some signifigantly different things (though re-using some of the same technologies,where practical) should be more specifically designed for them. ...And Mr. Vincent need not be concerned. There's nothing humans can possibly do to the Moon with any existing or forseeable technology that will alter its mass or orbit an any way.

The next lunar lander

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 05:51:37 GMT

This from JFK during a speach in September '63 at the UN: Finally, in a field where the United States and the Soviet Union have a special capacity--in the field of space--there is room for new cooperation, for further joint efforts in the regulation and exploration of space. I include among these possibilities a joint expedition to the moon. Space offers no problems of sovereignty; by resolution of this Assembly, the members of the United Nations have foresworn any claim to territorial rights in outer space or on celestial bodies, and declared that international law and the United Nations Charter will apply. Why, therefore, should man's first flight to the moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries--indeed of all the world--cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending someday in this decade to the moon not the representatives of a single nation, but the representatives of all of our countries.

Full Speech:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/
Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/
Speeches/JFK/003POF03_18th
GeneralAssembly09201963.htm

As you can see, it was NOT a RACE to him, at least not towards the end. It was - in fact - a chance for peace. The Kennedy library had acknowledged that JFK had made statements regarding a decidedly competitive view of manned lunar landing (Tape 63 Presidential Recordings). But also seemsd to hint that in the National Security Files can be found additional information on a wish for cooperation:

NSF; US/USSR Cooperation; box 307

....NSF; Standing Group Meetings Series; 5/18/62 US-USSR Cooperation in Outer Space Matters; box 314

....NSF; Carl Kaysen Series; Outer Space Cooperation, 3/62-10/62 and undated; box 377

The next lunar lander

James C., Jacksonville, NC — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:32:56 GMT

I think we, as a world-wide population are thinking too shallow when it comes to the possibilities of space and exploration. It seems that we are content with simply landing, collecting samples and readings, and then leaving. What we need to be considering is the future needs of the world. Earth can only hold so many of us, and the number of farms are declining steadily. Why not begin designs for repopulating another planet or moon? The amount of money we poor into certain funds (which shall remain nameless) would be enough to have completed not only the theory but the actual start of repopulation. I feel this is the direction we should be moving towards, especially at this time of our evolution.

The next lunar lander

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:28:36 GMT

James, I think it's more shallow than even just landing and gathering samples. It's become a giant ego trip first to beat Russia and now China. Why can't we feel pride to be human if either of these nations lands there? Underneath I think we are just trying to play for position. We know that the China wants to go to the moon and will probably entice Russia and maybe even Europe to go along. That would leave us the odd man out and so we've chosen to try to initial say we are going and therefore prevent a later alliance between Europe and China. It may also be a political ploy. I remember seeing an MSNBC poll about five years ago where a very strong percentage of people said they would cast their vote according to who favors an aggressive space policy. It was just one more card the current admin took from potential rivals. As far as the need to leave earth because of overpopulation, I just don't see that as a viable alternative for at least a couple hundred years. While blogging I ran across an interesting statement by a person who said that if we moved all of the world's population into the country of Mexico, it would still not be an densely populated as NYC. It can be somewhat of a myth. Growing food can be done better in greenhouses and hydroponics bays that out in seasonally-dependant farm fields. I do agree with you that we do need a much more aggressive space program. Too me (if I was ruler for the day) I'd build an intersolarsystem starship able to take massive sensor pallets out to about Neptune and return (MASSIVE). I'd alternately consider 40 to 80 Cassini sized missions. I'd be daring enough to consider an "Orion" type probe to another star but I really think we need better recon with massive space telescopes before we find a worthy earth like target to head for.

The next lunar lander

James C. Jacksonville, NC — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:54:02 GMT

I agree whole heartedly Chris. The only way we are going to be able to accomplish our goals of becoming a space-faring race is to work together internationally, more so than we are now. Its not just about or exploration abilities either. Imagine the breakthrough our medical field would have. Each new planet explored brings about new compounds and substances, possibly plant and animal life. The risk of new diseases comes naturally, but who knows, our cure for cancer, heart disease, etc could be out on any of the billions of planets in the universe. Call me an extreme optimist or accuse me of having a wild imagination, but man-kind is no longer challenging itself, we're no longer moving forward. We risk reverting backwards in our evolution due to the lack of stimulation our minds are getting (as a whole). A friend once told me something they had once heard, "We live to learn, and when we stop learning, we stop living." We can never hope to expand our minds, or our lives, if we do not take that extra step to explore what is out there. Where would we be if mankind hadn't taken the initiative to explore what was beyond the coastline? What would we be like if the Wright brother's hadn't wanted to fly with the birds? If Franklin hadn't dared to fly a kite in a thunderstorm? What will we be like if Tom, Dick and Harry don't take the opportunity to travel amongst the stars?

The next lunar lander

Chris-Philadelphia-PA — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:02:19 GMT

We have already been to the moon - let's try another planet like Mars and Saturn and maybe Pluto to see if it is in fact a planet or not, so that we can put that to rest and either keep it as a planet or not.