The long awaited Exploration Systems Architecture Study was released today in a midmorning conference chaired by NASA Administrator Mike Griffin. This study is the blueprint for a return to the Moon to develop techniques and systems for colonizing and maintaining a permanent human presence on our largest satellite. From there, the systems will be used to journey to Mars, our closest planetary neighbor in the Solar System.
The Study calls for Shuttle Derived spacecraft, with astronauts launched into space on a vehicle much like the Saturn V Rocket, but based on the Shuttle's solid rocket boosters instead of liquid fuel rockets. Lunar mission components and CEV's (Crew Exploration Venhicles) for transport to the moon will be launched into orbit atop an elongated version of the shuttles main fuel tank, boosted by solid rocket engines and five of the Shuttles main rocket engines.
This heavy lift vehicle will be robotically controlled, and will allow a separation of crew and equipment launches, ensuring that the risk to astronauts is kept to a minimum.
From the NASA Press Release:
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin today released the results of the agency's exploration architecture study - a blueprint for the next generation of spacecraft to take humans back to the moon and on to Mars and other destinations.
The study makes specific design recommendations for a vehicle to carry crews into space, a family of launch vehicles to take crews to the moon and beyond, and a "lunar mission architecture" for landing on the moon. It also recommends the technologies NASA should pursue in the near term.
The study will assist NASA in achieving President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration, which calls for the agency to safely return the space shuttle to flight, complete the International Space Station, return to the moon, and continue exploration of Mars and beyond.
America's next generation spacecraft will use an improved, blunt-body crew capsule, and will accommodate up to six people. "This spacecraft and its systems will build upon the foundation of the proven designs and technologies used in the Apollo and space shuttle programs, while having far greater capability," Griffin said. "It will be able to carry larger and heavier cargos into space and allow more people to stay on the moon for longer periods of time."
The new spacecraft can be configured either to support human explorers or fly unpiloted to carry cargo. Its design allows the flexibility to ferry crews of three astronauts, plus additional supplies, to and from the International Space Station, take four crew members to lunar orbit, and eventually maintain up to six astronauts on a mission to Mars.
Article comments
1 - VicL04@aol.com
Really interesting post, Bennett. If we don't move forward we'll get nowhere I suppose.
It just seems the days of "Beam me up, Scotty," are really far, far away.
2 - Bennett
Hey Vic, yeah it does seem far far away. But for now, I can think about 2010, being in Florida to watch these new giant rockets light up.
Should be quite the show!
3 - Victor Plenty
"Beam me up" was never based on science, anyway. In the first season of Star Trek the budget was too tight to let them build all the sets for shuttlecraft interiors, shuttlecraft hangars on the main ship, and shuttlecraft landing sites. Along with all the special effects to depict shuttles in flight between USS Enterprise and wherever Captain Kirk had a hot date every week, it was just too expensive.
They solved the budget problem by building the instantaneous teleportation room. Then they just needed one set and a very cheap special effect to send Kirk wherever he wanted to go, along with an endless supply of doomed Security guys in red shirts.
Later on, Roddenberry got the money to build the shuttlecraft sets anyway, but real space travel is still saddled with the imagery of "beam me up" as the ultimate goal in many people's minds, even though it may forever remain physically impossible.
4 - Victor Lana
Yes, Victor, I know the ST history fairly well. Lots of what happened on the show was based on budget (those foam boulders, the lousy humming noise on ship, the beaming up sometimes just being a sound when we didn't see it, etc.)
But I think the technology, the brilliance of the beaming up, was that space travel could and would eventually take us boldy where we wanted and needed to go. Look, we're all walking around with a version of Kirk's communicator on our belts these days. Whose to say in 100 years someone named Scotty (or Jock or Earl) will be beaming people up.
Live long and prosper, man!
5 - Victor Plenty
I'd hoped comment 1 was from a different Victor. It saddens me whenever I see anyone still trapped in the Evil Empire of AOL. Seriously, though, did you really want to post your email address so openly in such a public place frequented by spammers? If not, I'd recommend asking one of the editors to remove it.
But back to the point. We're not really carrying anything like Kirk's communicator around on our belts yet. Remember, they didn't need to build a massive infrastructure of cellular relay towers on every planet before they could talk to each other. They didn't need to deploy a constellation of satellites, either.
Still, a real equivalent of the Star Trek communicator might be physically possible someday. It is at least a reasonable extrapolation from our present knowledge of science and technology. The transporter room is an entirely different matter. Modern physics gives us no reason to believe teleportation will ever be possible, other than generic hand-waving like "nobody really knows what the future might hold."
6 - devananda
My question is, Why bother? we have enough problems here on earth. why are we wasting money to replace something that was a waste of money to begin with. The satelite system is cool I guess. Modern meteorology wouldnt really be posible without it and I wouldnt have half of my 200 worthless television chanels. but going to the moon and setting up a permanent presence is about as useful as setting up a permanent presence at the bottom of the ocean. Hell we'd might find something useful at the bottom of the ocean. At least we could get it to the surface of the planet we actually live on at a reasonable cost, if we did.
Anyhow its late and I'm in a bad mood but I fail to see how we can justify more than the bare minimum space program required to maintain the small portion of satelites that are actually doing somethin useful when we have pressing problems here on earth. There is a reason america is the only country who still has a real space program we are the only ones stupid enough to think its worth it. And dont give me that quest for discovery pure science bs Solve some real problems then play with your toy rockets on you time off with your own money not mine
7 - Temple Stark
Culture/Tech Editor Lisa Hoover picked this his pick of the week. Go HERE to find out why. And thank you very much.
8 - Tom Johnson
The world would be an awful miserable place if people like Devananda had their place. Space exploration yields a tremendous amount of innovation in industries you can't even begin to imagine are associated with it. This has been well-covered so I'm not even going to begin going into it - if you want to find it, Google it and you will see. You do realize that if the money wasn't going to NASA it would not be going toward some humanitarian effort, right? Just because the money is there doesn't mean that it's the money that would have benefited the homeless. Most likely it would go into the military.
Bennett, what happened to the lifting-body type design NASA was talking about as the CEV? Has NASA completely ruled that idea out now?
9 - Bennett
Hi Tom,
Great points about the funding, where it comes from, and the benefits we receive from spending the money on NASA!
I'm not sure what you mean by "lifting-body type" design.
From the get-go, NASA has recognized that a side by side design like the Shuttle looked really good on paper, but created way too many chances for potentially hazardous impacts on the spacecraft, from anything from foam to slush.
The in-line design is a proven technology, and to use existing elements of the Shuttle is a natural (see cost effective) way to go at this point.
Please let me know what I'm missing here!
10 - Bennett
BTW Devananda,
Russia, China, the EU, Japan, India....
All have space programs, and they are rapidly expanding the scope of their efforts.
You see, there are resources "out there" that we will need eventually. If we don't get on it soon, we may never get there.
We are all eggs, in one very fragile basket.
11 - Deano
As a huge supporter of the space program in general, I should be excited, I should be thrilled...but unfortunately what I feel is a sense of tremendous let-down.
It feels like "Back to the Future" all over again - a modern dust-off of the 60's models.
Where is the vision, the innovation? Is this just a redirection by NASA to insure the budget is still intact in 2010?
Why do we even need NASA in the first place? They have demonstrated a distinct lack of innovation across much of their operations in recent years, are politically tied into spending money in ridiculous ways and seem incapable of reducing the stultifying bureaucracy that permeates the organization.
Why not just do another X-Prize - $100-billion payable to the first private sector business that can land, maintain and sustain, in good health, a manned commercial mooonbase on the Moon with a population of a least 20 individuals for 3 years. It will be cheaper by far then having NASA do it...and faster to boot.
How about it? Or are we all going to be stuck in the Well forever? I want to be out there hopping planets (if not me then somebody!), not stuck in some downworlder dirt bar weeping into my tequila over what might have been...
12 - Gralgrathor
@ Deano :
Eventually, if space exploration is going to be economically feasible, it will *have* to be perpetrated by private sector businesses on a commercial footing. It's too bad that too few people seem to realize the profits that can be made from space. I mean, the realestate market alone is going to balloon as soon as private space exploitation is underway.