NASA's Moon Mission

SpaceNut · 2005-09-23 06:23:54

Quite the rebuttal but needed.

Yes Nasa has made that commercial statement for ISS cargo but the are no other launch sites owned or operated other than by Boeing and Lockheed at this time all others are suborbital. Not to mention that probably neither would sell off the shelf items to others for which some one else could build these ships.
What about SpaceX's pads at Vandenberg and Kwajelein? What about the Taurus and Minotaur pads used by Orbital Sciences (or, for that matter, the Pegasus, which uses no pad.) A space startup can get its own pads. Right now, LC-46 at the Cape is available.

Thanks for the reminder of the Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. and the Taurus or Minotaur pads are located there as well. Plus these all appear to be military contractors.

Complex 46 was built to service the US Navy’s TRIDENT II ballistic missile pad launch series of tests. This site underwent major modification in 1997 to construct facilities to support the Spaceport Florida Authority and Lockheed Martin Athena class launch vehicle missions and is currently active.
Under a dual-use commercialization agreement with the U.S. Air Force and Navy, the Spaceport Authority has modified Launch Complex 46 (LC-46), at the very tip of the Cape, to accommodate up to four different types of rockets. The Spaceport Authority now leases the pad to commercial users, eliminating the requirement for each launch company to invest millions to build its own infrastructure. Launch Complex 46 will maintain the military mission capability for which it originally was built: supporting the Navy's Trident missile program.

Looks like they are all fairly busy locations.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-23 08:06:47

Gee VTTFSH_V, you sure do make alot of USELESS noise

Yeah, I do kind of think that Apollo was "honorable," because of the achievement it was... going from V-2 rockets with stretched fuel tanks to the 40 story tall Saturn-V in about a decade stands as the single most sucessful engineering project in the history of mankind. Plus, it was an overwhelming victory of the Cold War against Communism, which was its primary purpose. But the material bennefit of the Lunar landings, which were quite marginal, must not be repeated under VSE. We can, and should, do better.

"What you effectively asserted was that we are going to send astronauts to the moon to breathe, to make gas to with perhaps come back (that one is especially funny), and to open up oppertunities for science, tourism and commercial mining."

Thats correct. Barring a space elevator or a SCRAMJET breakthrough, its not going to be economical to bring all propellants from Earth: the Moon is coverd in what amounts to "rust," which is full of oxygen, and is also the major componet of rocket fuel. So, commercial ventures obviously will need this reasource, and the government providing it for them will radically lower the startup cost of a Lunar commercial venture. It ain't rocket science, as it were, if you can get 80% of your propellant from Moon dust.

Skylab was an attempt to get something useful out of the remaining Saturn rockets, which cost some billions apiece, which would otherwise have gone to waste. Other then the solar pannel snafu, it worked pretty well.

"But the biggest disappointment was the Hubble Space Telescope..."

Well that cinches it: you are a troll.

Did you know that Hubble was built to last no more than 15 years? That its basic design, if it were to perform flawlessly, would become unreliable after 15 years? Well guess what, the 15 years is up... so, letting Hubble go is actually the sane thing to do, not waste $1,300,000,000 and risk another Shuttle crew to fix it. Furthermore, because of the extreme cost of each Shuttle flight, also having blueprints for Hubble/SIRTF/Chandra, and even new Hubble cameras in Florida it would cost a bit less then that to just build a brand new telescope. Japan even offerd to donate a super-widefield camera, which is something that Hubble-I nor ground based telescopes can do.

More science, less money. Fixing Hubble would be "screwing over" the scientific community on the balence.

Space tourism to the Moon would probobly be viable with a vehicle(s) of similar reliability to what NASA wants to build without much improvement. The CEV will have an aproximatly 1/1,500 chance of injury/death, and thats probobly the first or second most risky part of the trip. If you offer me a trip to the Moon with a 1/1,000 risk of death, I would (and thousands of others) take it in a heartbeat. Shuttle however is a different story.

NASA would not be mining the Moon, only preparing the way for people who do, by finding mining sites and testing mining technology. Thats what government development money is for, to encourage businesses by reducing the cost and risk of entering new markets.

Your assertion that NASA doesn't intend to do anything useful on the Moon sounds like an annoying buzzing in my ear from a mental insect, particularly since your own arguments don't really refute the usefulness of a Lunar program.

Your affliction for a high-orbit RLV is also particularly characteristic... Where do you intend to fly it to? A space station? How much will that cost? What will you do there? Research is a red-herring, since so little of it needs zero gravity. Manufacturing too, since nothing that requires zero gravity is profitable. Why do you need high-orbit capability? Don't you know that pushing a large vehicle to high orbit will take tonnes of fuel that drives costs sky-high? Don't you know that satelites, when they do wear out, are usually obsolete and not worth fixing? Don't you know that new, cookie-cutter comm sats would cost less for better service? Don't you know that launch cost is a smaller fraction of com sat cost? Don't you know that the com sat market is in the toilet? Don't you know that RLVs to make Mars vehicles would probobly need an expensive assembly station? Don't you know that there is no justification for a high flight rate RLV, and it would sit in the hanger gathering dust most of the time?

It is clear that you are just making noise for the sake of making noise.

flashgordon · 2005-09-23 10:02:28

i like the plan because it secures the space industries(what some people call pork around here as far as I can tell) and establishes a moon base in due time. It also helps develop a rocket economy even more which is prerequisite for a space elevator even when those are built.

I also like the plan because it takes what worked and tries to improve upon it with new technologies, and the private space industries are coming around(I'm talking about Bigalow and the Falcon rockets). Also, watch out for the developing nanotech economy to help out in due time as well.

Overall, when in 2030, the worlds economies are humming to the tune of a nanotech/aerospace economy, humanity will be well on its way, especially, when they get nuclear power going on up out in space.

I like the way things are going; President Bush Jr can do something right! Also, I wrote that guy about getting rid of the space shuttle and building a manned capsule that can go to the moon and back on top of a regular rocket, and if you need to put up some space-station elements, better to do it separatelly from a rocket and leave those components up in orbit just like the space pioneers pointed out. I know who I'm investing in!

With every catastrophe and political competition from others, this space plan will get pushed through; i wouldn't be surprised if we get there before 2018 and have a moon base going before 2020! > by either america or somebody else!

SpaceNut · 2005-09-23 10:47:26

This is sort of confusing and concerns me a little about how the Field Centers are beginning to stake their claim on CEV work. Granted these are things that are need but is Nasa trying to do the project internally cutting out all contractors, other than for there part in supplying the materials needed to build both ship types? :?

- NASA ARC Solicitation: Crew Exploration Vehicle Heatshield Ablator Material Screening and Advanced Development

- NASA GRC Solicitation: Crew Exploration Vehicle Propulsion Advanced Development

publiusr · 2005-09-23 15:35:22

Par for the course. It's the only way to get political support.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-23 20:17:31

Here is some more from the circle of confusion...
Marshall Center will lead the design and development of the new launch systems. These responsibilities include the first stage and upper stage design and engine development, systems engineering and full vehicle stack integration, and safety and mission assurance.

Marshall Space Flight Center Prepares to Implement Space Exploration Missions

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Director David King today announced a realignment of center organizations to conduct new space exploration work, including development of new crew and cargo launch vehicles.
“We are enhancing our organization to ensure we successfully accomplish our new missions

NASA crew and cargo launch vehicle projects will be managed at Marshall. The crew launch vehicle will be a single four-segment solid propellant rocket booster with a liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen upper stage powered by one shuttle main engine. Intended to lift crews and cargo into orbit, it will lift 25 metric tons
The heavy-lift launch vehicle will support future lunar exploration missions. It will consist of five shuttle main engines on the core and two five-segment shuttle-derived solid propellant rocket boosters. It will have a lift capability of 106 metric tons to low Earth orbit and 125 metric tons when it incorporates an Earth-departure stage. Although primarily designed to carry cargo, it can be human-rated to carry crew into orbit

RobertDyck · 2005-09-25 03:16:36

NASA currently has a "Millennium Challenge" to extract oxygen from lunar regolith simulant. However, that's actually pretty easy considering at least one entire book has been written on that subject. There are many known ways to do it. We have samples of lunar rocks and soil, we can verify in detail the features of regolith and how they affect oxygen extraction. Lunar oxygen could be demonstrated on the very first science mission and used routinely at the base. In fact it could be demonstrated by a robotic sample return mission so the first human mission uses Lunox for return. That technology has been studied to death for 36 years.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-26 10:56:54

While Nasa seeks to rebuild from the Huricans of 2005 and looks towards its future with its mostly SDV vehicles we have asked when does the comercial market catchup and can do there own launch.

Part of the problem for the comercial market is the high cost to launch any of the currently considered private contractors vehicles.

While regulation styme the possiblity of alternative companies that are wishing for even sub orbital joy rides while dreaming of launching someday to the stars.

There is also the over looked group that has a vision for being a provider for launch an alternative site to launch from.
Next stop, space - eventually - at Wallops Island

Granted a 68-foot-tall Minotaur rocket and a launch pad 0-B to demonstrate its launch capability from this group does not seem like much but driving down the cost to launch in itself does not seem to be all that unrealistic either.

Armed with Big dreams to launch from pad 0-B, which by the way is one of only five federally licensed spaceports in the country.

It someday hopes to fly cargo to the ISS for it is a straight shot from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport to the orbiting International Space Station.

Rather than send a shuttle and crew to resupply the station, said Reed, who oversees the facility, NASA could strap food and materials to an unmanned rocket and launch it from here – for a fraction of the price.
In the meantime, the spaceport is ready to launch rockets with small satellites or space experiments.
When it was first announced in 1995, officials expected the commercial spaceport to generate $60 million and 300 jobs for the Eastern Shore’s economy over five years, based on an anticipated four or more launches a year. They built the $3.6 million launch pad, 0-B, which opened in 1998, and made other improvements to the infrastructure.

Yes not a single launch has occured but maybe someday.

SpaceNut · 2005-09-28 10:37:25

Could we use the Ariane 5 to do the function of the sdv cargo magnum vehicle.
ariane.v.jpg

It also looks like Nasa is really gearing up to make the CEV happen fast.

NASA ARC Solicitation: Crew Exploration Vehicle Heatshield Ablator Material Screening and Advanced Development

NASA Ames is requesting commercial vendors to propose relatively mature CEV heatshield TPS materials, heatshield TPS design and fabrication methodologies, and TPS attachment and integration approaches suitable for the environments consistent with Lunar Return (Block II), which are anticipated to reach heat flux levels as high as 1000 W/cm2 and surface pressures of up to 0.7 atm.

NASA GRC Solicitation: Crew Exploration Vehicle Propulsion Advanced Development

NASA/GRC plans to issue 8 Requests for Proposal
1: Low-g Mass Gauge
Develop (design, fabricate, test) a method for quantifying liquid oxygen and liquid methane mass for a propellant tank in a microgravity environment, with an emphasis on methods that do not require propellant settling.
2: Feed Subsystem Isolation Valve
Development of a prototype cryogenic propellant isolation valve that provides approximately 36 lbm/sec of liquid oxygen at approximately 15 psid (or 12 lbm/sec liquid methane) for long duration in-space operation.
3: Main Engine (anticipate 2 awards)
NASA is seeking the advanced development of an expendable, high-performance liquid oxygen/liquid methane Main Engine that could be used by the CEV Service Module to perform the orbit-change and deorbit burn(s) to/from the International Space Station and Trans-Earth Injection burn(s) from Lunar Orbit.
4: 100-lbf Reaction Control System (RCS) Engine (anticipate 2 awards)
NASA is seeking the design, development, and test of battleship and flight-weight (bolt on chambers are acceptable) prototype liquid oxygen and liquid methane RCS engine at a fixed thrust of approximately 100 lbf. The engine should nominally operate on sub-cooled liquid propellants
5: Flight-Weight Exciter
NASA is seeking the advanced development of a flight-weight exciter that significantly reduces mass and volume and increases duty cycle requirements over current commercial systems for RCS and Main Engine applications. The exciter will require a spark energy of approximately 50 mJ at 200-300 sparks per second.
6: Gaseous Helium (GHe) Tank
Cold helium (approximately 100 Kelvin) high pressure (6000 psig) storage vessels of 15-20 cubic feet volume are needed to support advanced development. Lightweight pressure vessel designs to support future flight hardware deliveries are preferred.
7: Pressure Control System A

8: Pressure Control System B

PurduesUSAFguy · 2005-09-28 19:13:06

Does anyone know what the payload capacity of the HLLV. Is that the final configuration? I heard 125 tonnes to LEO and thought that sounded low with 5 SSMEs and 5 segement SRBs.

How would 4 five segement SRBs affect it's lifting capacity? Wouldn't using the RS-68 with a regerative nozel provide more thurst and a lower cost engine?

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-28 19:37:05

125MT is low? No its not, the four-SSME version would only lift 110MT.

Don't get hung up on Bob Zubrin's 120MT figure for Ares, which was equipped with the ASRM version of the SRB, which was never built and is not an option.

NASA did look at a quad-SRB version actually, which would lift around 135-140MT probobly. Given the weight of the SRBs (they're kinda heavy), you get diminishing returns.

As far as the RS-68, the 68's thrust is already quite good, but its specific impulse leaves something to be desired. Adding a regenerative cooling loop would improve the situation, but because the 68' is a low-pressure engine its impossible to reach SSME-like specific impulse. The SSME is unique with its very high operating pressure, which gives it a performance thats hard to match. Modifying the 68' for higher chaimber pressure would be very difficult I bet, it would essentially be a new engine.

However, it is worthwhile to question if the 68's higher thrust makes up for its lower performance: NASA also considerd an alternative to the SSME-powerd "Magnum," a five-68' powerd core called "Longfellow." It would, in theory, have about the same or slightly less payload.

However, the RS-68 has one drawback that may not be apparent, that it isn't designed to be restartable. If NASA ever wanted to launch Magnum without an upper stage or a seperate, new kick stage, then it might re-ignite the central SSME for orbital circulization. That would yeild a launcher with about the right payload for NASA DRM-III style Mars missions.

The SSME will be powering The Stick anyway, so perhaps a cheaper version can be developed, and its definatly questionable if we should develop both a cheaper SSME and a higher-performance RS-68.

PurduesUSAFguy · 2005-09-28 20:03:09

125MT is low? No its not, the four-SSME version would only lift 110MT.
Don't get hung up on Bob Zubrin's 120MT figure for Ares, which was equipped with the ASRM version of the SRB, which was never built and is not an option.
NASA did look at a quad-SRB version actually, which would lift around 135-140MT probobly. Given the weight of the SRBs (they're kinda heavy), you get diminishing returns.
As far as the RS-68, the 68's thrust is already quite good, but its specific impulse leaves something to be desired. Adding a regenerative cooling loop would improve the situation, but because the 68' is a low-pressure engine its impossible to reach SSME-like specific impulse. The SSME is unique with its very high operating pressure, which gives it a performance thats hard to match. Modifying the 68' for higher chaimber pressure would be very difficult I bet, it would essentially be a new engine.
However, it is worthwhile to question if the 68's higher thrust makes up for its lower performance: NASA also considerd an alternative to the SSME-powerd "Magnum," a five-68' powerd core called "Longfellow." It would, in theory, have about the same or slightly less payload.
However, the RS-68 has one drawback that may not be apparent, that it isn't designed to be restartable. If NASA ever wanted to launch Magnum without an upper stage or a seperate, new kick stage, then it might re-ignite the central SSME for orbital circulization. That would yeild a launcher with about the right payload for NASA DRM-III style Mars missions.
The SSME will be powering The Stick anyway, so perhaps a cheaper version can be developed, and its definatly questionable if we should develop both a cheaper SSME and a higher-performance RS-68.

I definetly agree that developing both a simplified SSME or an uprated RS-68r would not be wise, it's a one or the other situation, I just question how straight forward it will be to make a cheapened high production rate SSME.

I also worry about sub 150 tonnes to LEO being enough to support a permanent presence on the moon or Mars, but I don't really see any near term options for a 150-200 tonnes class launcher without going clean sheet or doing something really radical to the shuttle stack.

GCNRevenger · 2005-09-28 20:35:04

Well, since RS-68 has too much thrust for TheStick, and the Russians managed to make a low-cost knockoff of SSME with the RD-0120, so I think that is the route to go.

In addition, its a political bone to throw the senator from Lousiana, since the Stennis center that tends to SSMEs would otherwise be out of business if SSME were canceld.

The trick to getting reasonable masses to Mars isn't to make a super-huge launcher, its to use medium-heavy launchers in pairs like NASA-DRM calls for. An 80-100MT class launcher would launch the Mars ship w/ lander and the TMI rocket seperatly, which would then dock (just dock, no "assembly") and go to Mars. I think this is the ideal situation given the very large expense of developing a mega 160-200MT class rocket. The crew can be launched seperatly on TheStick and rendezvous in orbit.

Direct to Mars, or direct to anywhere for that matter, is inherintly a bad idea I think. If you go directly, there is no opportunity to abort after the Mars-transit burn begins, so if there is a problem caused by the rigors of launch... well... "Houston, we have a BIG problem." On-orbit rendezvous permits you to get away with a smaller launcher and do on-orbit diagnostics to ensure everything is okay before departure.

It also makes partial reuseability possible down the road, when we have a Mars base.

The 120MT class SDV should be heavy enough a Moon base too: it would be able to deliver payloads on the order of 20MT or more in a single throw, which should be sufficent.

noosfractal · 2005-10-09 16:03:06

Do you think we can get a lunar elevator added to this mission?

John Creighton · 2005-10-09 16:06:06

Do you think we can get a lunar elevator added to this mission?

Although it can be built now I think the will weight until they have better materials. The demonstrations can be done on earth with balloons.

noosfractal · 2005-10-09 16:29:01

It's just that next to the $100b budget for the mission, the price of a lunar elevator doesn't seem so out of reach. What do you think it would cost with current materials? $10b?

jabe · 2005-10-10 06:23:16

SpaceRef's article http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069 illustrates a little more detail on the architecture of the moon mission that was obtained from a briefing... not sure if it has been posted anywhere. Details are slowly coming out

Dook · 2005-10-10 09:39:50

Someone here once said that hardware for a moon mission won't work for a mars mission.

Quote..."Connolly noted that the sizing of the CEV, its launcher, and the heavy launch vehicle - both developed from modified Space Shuttle hardware - was done to support eventual missions to Mars".

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069

SpaceNut · 2005-10-10 10:20:23

Someone here once said that hardware for a moon mission won't work for a mars mission.
Quote..."Connolly noted that the sizing of the CEV, its launcher, and the heavy launch vehicle - both developed from modified Space Shuttle hardware - was done to support eventual missions to Mars".
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1069

I think most of it will, with slight modifications. Lunar lander would need a heat shield and possibly parachutes to aid with more mas to the Mars surface. The rockets as designed for HLV from the shuttle stacks are actually over kill for moon missions if only staying a few days but for much longer missions it would appear to be just right. Same holds true of a lunar spacesuit being overkill for mars use.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-19 08:55:32

It appears that Top scientists want Britain to join space mission reversing its long-standing opposition to involvement in space exploration and be part of the next round of missions to the Moon and Mars.

For £150 million a year for 20 to 25 years, Britain could play a full part in international manned flights, they say in a report commissioned by the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS).
“In ten to fifteen years’ time, several nations will be involved in human space flight. If major countries are embarked on a return to the Moon and an exploration of Mars, the UK should want to be involved.”
Drilling projects on the Moon and Mars could not be carried out by robots and would need human involvement, the report concluded. Scientific arguments for the projects were now stronger, and the time was ripe.

The The Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) chimes in as well on the subject Human Space Exploration.

Martian Republic · 2005-10-19 10:27:10

It's just that next to the $100b budget for the mission, the price of a lunar elevator doesn't seem so out of reach. What do you think it would cost with current materials? $10b?

I'm not sure about the lunar elevator idea or it feasibility right now. It something that we would like to look into to see if it feasible to it in the not too distant future. I was thinking of adding a third rocket to the Moon Mission with Bigalow habitat for twenty people on it and drop that on the Moon and turn our seven day mission into two or three month mission to the Moon. The Bigalow that I saw was about three stories high and between fifty to hundred feet in diameter. One the next Moon Mission take a nuclear power on the third rocket. One the third mission to the Moon, take hydroponics garden on that third rocket. Then we might look into either lunar elevator or a levitated rail launch system to ad to what has already been put down on the Moon. But, I don't think that a Lunar Elevator would be one of the first things that you would put on the Moon though. Then we wouldn’t have to buy new lunar lander every time we go to the moon, which decrease the price of maintaining a lunar base and resources required to keep it going.

But, that just my opinion of what I would add if I were going to add something to there current Moon Mission.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2005-10-19 10:55:17

I am sure it would be possible to build a smaller throwaway lunar lander once the Base construction begins and use a much larger lander for bulk cargo delivery with out them always being able to return to orbit.

Make the smaller lander refuelable so as to get rid of the second stage if only ferrying personel to the return vehicle.

As the large lander is emptied reuse parts to build other ships or stuff from as needed or turn into additional living space if possible.

noosfractal · 2005-10-19 17:07:25

I was thinking of adding a third rocket to the Moon Mission with Bigalow habitat for twenty people on it and drop that on the Moon and turn our seven day mission into two or three month mission to the Moon. The Bigalow that I saw was about three stories high and between fifty to hundred feet in diameter. One the next Moon Mission take a nuclear power on the third rocket. One the third mission to the Moon, take hydroponics garden on that third rocket.

Sounds like a pretty good idea - you might get resistance to the nuclear power unit though - maybe some sort of solar unit would be okay. It'll be interesting to see how those Bigelow habitats test out next year.

.

publiusr · 2005-10-21 15:26:40

It appears that Top scientists want Britain to join space mission reversing its long-standing opposition to involvement in space exploration and be part of the next round of missions to the Moon and Mars.
For £150 million a year for 20 to 25 years, Britain could play a full part in international manned flights, they say in a report commissioned by the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS).
“In ten to fifteen years’ time, several nations will be involved in human space flight. If major countries are embarked on a return to the Moon and an exploration of Mars, the UK should want to be involved.”
Drilling projects on the Moon and Mars could not be carried out by robots and would need human involvement, the report concluded. Scientific arguments for the projects were now stronger, and the time was ripe.
The The Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) chimes in as well on the subject Human Space Exploration.

Better and better.

Martian Republic · 2005-10-21 20:47:05

I am sure it would be possible to build a smaller throwaway lunar lander once the Base construction begins and use a much larger lander for bulk cargo delivery with out them always being able to return to orbit.
Make the smaller lander refuelable so as to get rid of the second stage if only ferrying personel to the return vehicle.
As the large lander is emptied reuse parts to build other ships or stuff from as needed or turn into additional living space if possible.

I suppose that we could do this. But past experiences is, if we don't plan for something like this and state that that what we are going to do, it generally doesn't happen. Of course if we do add a Bigelow habitat in there, our return mission to the moon will look like it something more than a soaped up Apollo program which is basically what it is. Adding a habitat to the Moon would be something that we haven't done before and would be great step forward for mankind too. Assuming that we can buy a third buster a Bigelow habitat and a steering rockets for that Bigelow habitat and we can then land it on the Moon for another 5 to 10 billion dollars then it would be worth it.

Most of the cost of going back to the moon goes into developing the new buster and testing out a man rated new rocket system. Once we have it developed, it pull stuff off the shelf for new additions things that we want to do. Both those buster and the Bigelow habitat will be off the shelf items that we can use and they won't be something that we develop. So we will be just buying the item we want instead of having to pay for the development cost too. Besides, we are not going to be saving money in the long run either when you try to piece meal something like this. Do I have to remind you that both the Space Shuttle Orbiter and International Space Station were both piece meal operation and nobody on this board is happy with either one of those projects. We tried to get a general purpose shuttle that could do everything that everybody wanted done and got a shuttle that nobody wanted. We tried to cheap out on the ISS and got cost over runs with ISS that half finished and not what we need nor is it in the orbit that we need it in either. We try this same kind of logic on the Moon, there no reason to believe that we aren't going to whined up with the garbage up there too and for the exactly same reasons too.

I’m not too impressed with all this dual use purposes for space hardware and scrap this crap together of two or three lower buster that we left on the Moon from previous Moon landing to build a temporary habitat for our astronauts on the moon. If we going to have five to six more Lunar Mission with ten to twelve rocket to do those five or six mission, then why not add one more rocket and take a Bigelow habitat to the moon too. We can also have a mock up of that Bigelow habitat here on the Earth too to get people interested in space again and who will be interested in following the progress of what going on at the Moon too. It would be easier to market going back to the Moon to the American People too, because they can see what your trying to do and they can get on board with your program.

Larry,

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2005-09-23 06:23:54

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#77 2005-09-23 08:06:47

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#78 2005-09-23 10:02:28

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#79 2005-09-23 10:47:26

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#80 2005-09-23 15:35:22

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#81 2005-09-23 20:17:31

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#82 2005-09-25 03:16:36

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#83 2005-09-26 10:56:54

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#84 2005-09-28 10:37:25

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#85 2005-09-28 19:13:06

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#86 2005-09-28 19:37:05

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#87 2005-09-28 20:03:09

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#88 2005-09-28 20:35:04

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#89 2005-10-09 16:03:06

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#90 2005-10-09 16:06:06

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#91 2005-10-09 16:29:01

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#92 2005-10-10 06:23:16

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#93 2005-10-10 09:39:50

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#94 2005-10-10 10:20:23

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#95 2005-10-19 08:55:32

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#96 2005-10-19 10:27:10

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#97 2005-10-19 10:55:17

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#98 2005-10-19 17:07:25

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#99 2005-10-21 15:26:40

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

#100 2005-10-21 20:47:05

Re: NASA's Moon Mission

Board footer