Hi Michael, I think you are certainly right about the problems with the shuttle. It was supposed be almost completely reusable with quick turnaround, reduced cost to orbit and be the all-in-one for delivering payloads to orbit. I don't think it really ended up delivering on many of the promises. It might be interesting to see a documentary on the decision making that gave us STS. As you mentioned they are using technology from both previous programs so you could possibly say this is the direct follow on. I think they are also going to have a lot more unmanned testing with this one which will be aided by our increased technical capabilities. I believe I saw something that said the Mars vehicle would be a "beefier" version that could hold six astronauts. So, hopefully they will still take some things in steps. I suspect there are several reasons concerning why it will take so long. Certainly there are now two major albatrosses (is that the correct way to pluralize albatross?) - namely ISS & the shuttle. The lack of major budget increases and lukewarm public & congressional support are probably additional reasons. I'm certainly with Joe on this also - I'm definitely excited to see NASA with a plan to FINALLY get out of low earth orbit. Who would have thought after Apollo 17 that it would be nearly the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 before we would go back. Clear skies, Dale.

-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Michael Carnes Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 8:31 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] NASA's plan to return to the moon

I've certainly been clear in my dislike of the shuttle, but this is a whole new kettle of fish. The problems with the shuttle are legion. It's expensive, unnecessarily risky, and most importantly: doomed to low earth orbit. The new plan looks to scrap a lot of that. In retrospect, shuttle engineers may have been too eager for something new and whiz-bang, and perhaps ignored many of the valuable lessons from the Apollo program. I'm glad to see the new plan retain the lessons and technology from BOTH previous programs.

Still, there are two things that strike me as a bit odd. In the lunar program, we went from Mercury, though Gemini, to Apollo. Each program was intended to accomplish specific goals and to build particular skills. I've only seen a little about the new NASA direction, but it appears that they're going right for the complete new crew vehicle all at once--one capable of going to the moon and Mars. I wonder if it might make more sense to have a few intermediate goals for preliminary versions of that vehicle.

The other thing is this: When John Kennedy made his famous speech about going to the moon, it was 1961. He set a goal of getting there by the end of the decade. We did it, with half a year to spare. The new plan is to get there by 2018, thirteen years away. We've already been to the moon several times. Our basic technology and computer abilities are orders of magnitude better than they were then. So why is it going to take so long this time?

...

I realize that there are a fair number of you that aren't too keen to the manned space program anymore. But, I think if we can get the infrastructure in place - then we can have a manned program that is well worth the cost.