Feeds

back to article Tech woes threaten NASA's Moon plan

A leaked internal report shows that NASA's ambitions to get its new moonshot spacecraft off the ground in five years may be thwarted by technical and financial issues. The agency's publicly-announced deadline to conduct a first test launch of a manned Orion capsule is 2015, although internally it hoped to fast-track this to 2013 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Boffin

No time left for the failed AmeriKKKan state's moon mission.

How can it be so diffucult?

Because it's <NOT> based on the Saturn V.

It's based on a heavily modified shuttle design - which is not a bad idea in itself but it's still a redesign.

NASA is stuck in the same old habit of a new design for every mission, just like the U.S. nuclear power program has a new reactor design for every snowflake that falls.

The result is huge costs, delays, as the same problems have to be solved over and over and over again.

You know, like Programming.

In any Case. The U.S will be long gone as a nation before it ever gets back to the moon in any meaningful way.

0
0
Bronze badge

Yup

A new nuclear powered shuttle with oversized ion xenon propulsion, the planet would laugh at another space cuboard that falls back to earth, and youd need another major project for mars

0
0
Black Helicopters

It's all been faked!

I am so glad to hear someone call out the US for faking the moon landings. They also faked 9-11, or at least it was an "inside" job. The Southern states never secceded from the union eighter! The Civil war was faked! check it out at:http://www.anydumbassknowschinafakedthecivilwarintheus.com/secretesof1800s.php

Infact I have proof the US does not, and has never existed! has anyone actualy spoken to an "American"? Spain faked Columbus's trip to the "new world". Spain sent Columbus out to sea and he fell of the side of the planet! Also Rome faked Jesus's death, he's alive and well in the Vatican, hanging out with super Moses and Ghandi!

All you dumb people out there, I have swampland and a bridge to sell you!

0
0
Joke

Pogoing and fluid requirements

Pogoing might be reduced if they don't have "40 punk hits of 1976" on the stereo.

Also, if they subbed the whole thing out to the Russians, it would reduce the water requirement as they don't typically take any in their vodka.

0
0
Pirate

They hide the truth, and make u dumbberer

I am so glad to hear someone call out the US for faking the moon landings. They also faked 9-11, or at least it was an "inside" job. The Southern states never secceded from the union eighter! The Civil war was faked! check it out at:http://www.anydumbassknowschinafakedthecivilwarintheus.com/secretesof1800s.php

Infact I have proof the US does not, and has never existed! has anyone actualy spoken to an "American"? Spain faked Columbus's trip to the "new world". Spain sent Columbus out to sea and he fell of the side of the planet! Also Rome faked Jesus's death, he's alive and well in the Vatican, hanging out with super Moses and Ghandi!

All you dumb people out there, I have swampland and a bridge to sell you!

0
0

since the ISS crew are not doing anything interesting

they should just assemble the moon lander in orbit behind the ISS using the current running fleet of rockets.

Shuttle (or russian/ESA/Nasa rocket) to ISS with gas tank.

Shuttle (or russian/ESA/Nasa rocket) to ISS with Lander.

ISS crew assemble

Shuttle (or russian/ESA/Nasa rocket) to ISS with Command Module?

ISS crew assemble

Shuttle to ISS with crew, wave goodbye.

It's not 1966, we can do in flight assembly, docking and long flights. Bounty to the moon with existing kit, ahead of time, under budget and safer. WOW Why build a new road every time you go somewhere?

0
0
Go

what's wrong with a Soyuz?

I thought the Russians were our friends now?

The Soyuz was designed to go to the moon; why not just use that? Cheap, available, reliable - heck even the Chinese have based their designs on the Soyuz.

The Cone-shaped CM gives you a lot of advantage for reentry control - largely pointless now they are looking at water recovery - land where you want! Even Soyuz can still manage a land touchdown though!

Personally, I've always thought the US went for cone-shapes / shuttles over the somewhat unaesthetic Soyuz for exactly that reason - the US moon programme was competing with Star Trek and Buck Rogers AS WELL as the Russians - the viewing public would not stand for pea-green spacecraft that look like dumplings with bits of dragonfly stuck on randomly.

'Starbug' on Red Dwarf is a far more realistic spacecraft than anything Gene Roddenbury or George Lucas ever threw at us.

0
0
Paris Hilton

@all dicussions of Saturn V

My point was not that the new ship is an EXACT or even visually similar large copy of the old Apollo craft, but that after 40 years there has been no significant step forward in launch technology, we are still talking about solid rocket boosters and 'old-fashioned' liquid fuel engines.

NASA is suffering for the cancellation of such projects as VentureStar which was working, for example, on an aerospike engine that was more efficient than the 60's technology still used by ESA and NASA on Arianne and the Space Shuttle.

What is the point of going back to the moon if it isn't going to drive the development of safe, reliable and cheaper (in the long term) spacecraft? There are three different requirements, demanding three different craft:

1. Earth (high gravity) to orbit and back making optimal use of the fact that we can build specialised launch facilities be it long runways or launch pads.

2. Earth orbit to Moon/Mars/ano orbit. No real gravity concerns so a ship designed just to go between orbits will be light and simple.

3. Orbit to unprepared landing site and back for landing on the moon (or wherever) - different challenges again to earth take-off and landing.

Why try and do all three at the same time? Lets resurrect VentureStar or something similar to give cheaper and safer into-orbit technology, we can then design, build and test intra-orbit craft and work on the hardest bit which is a reliable and safe, reusable craft for the moon landing.

Anything that is based on non-reusable technology is a complete waste of time and money and doesn't take the human race any closer to more regularised space travel.

Paris, because even she could arrive at this conclusion...

0
0
Alien

Simple

how about NASA build the ship in earth orbit, then they can fly to the moon, beam down, do what they gotta, then shoot on over to Mars, park her in standard orbit, beam down, fight some martians or klingons or whatever, beam back up, warp out of orbit then boldly go where no man has gone before.

0
0
Bronze badge

Worthless

Why do all of you talk about ancient technology, when the moon landing is scheduled for a few years before shuttle needs replacing, a new shuttle that can reach the moon would only need a few upgrades in 20yrs time, and a compartment with ride the bull

0
0
Bronze badge

And

Space debris is the same as shoothng a bullet, titanitm mesh would prevent carbon fiber from flexing under high heat and pressure.

0
0
Paris Hilton

Paris, just because

She also experiences shaking during launch and has an exit hatch door that is hard to open.

0
0
Bronze badge

Finish the basics

And a thin layer of impactgel and toughend graphite as the outter layer for graphite polymer quick fixing ;-)

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.