FYI,

"NASA Outlines Plans for Moon and Mars"
Orlando Sentinel
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/custom/space/orl-asec-
moon073105,0,3136666.htmlstory?coll=orl-home-promo

: NASA's new road map for the human exploration of space would land
: four astronauts on the moon by 2018 as the first step toward an
: eventual six-person voyage to Mars.

: Pioneers would build a lunar outpost, most likely at the south
: pole, with living quarters, power plants and communication systems.
: Expeditions would scavenge the desolate landscape for precious
: supplies such as fuel and water.

: Astronauts would roam the surface in high-tech dune buggies to
: search for answers to scientific riddles that continue to baffle
: researchers. The crews would blast off aboard rockets derived from
: the space-shuttle fleet and parachute back to Earth in capsules
: similar to those used during the Apollo program.

: The assault on the moon would be a precursor to 500-day expeditions
: on Mars, an alien world more than 35 million miles away that some
: scientists suspect could hold evidence of extraterrestrial life.

: Those and other specifics of NASA's ambitious plans for a new era
: of human space travel are outlined in a set of internal briefing
: charts on the agency's recent Exploration Systems Architecture
: Study. A copy of those briefings, parts of which are scheduled to
: be made public next month, was obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.

: Some things are subject to change, and important decisions have yet
: to be made. But the study is the first detailed description of how
: NASA intends to accomplish the goals announced by President Bush in
: January 2004 of returning astronauts to the moon by 2020 to prepare
: for later missions to Mars.

: So far, the program has considerable support from the White House
: and Congress, but to become a reality, it will have to withstand
: the test of time. The study estimates the program will cost about
: $217 billion through 2025. NASA's exploration office is projected
: to receive about the same amount of money during that period.

: To stay within the budget, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin has
: spent much of his first three months on the job refocusing the
: agency and its resources on preparing for a return to the moon.

: "I hope that you will see as we bring it forward," Griffin told
: Congress on June 28, "a logical, clean, simple, straightforward
: approach."

: Griffin's influence already has been felt. The current study is the
: result of a 60-day review of previous exploration plans. It
: contains a number of important changes. Among them:

: A version of the same ship designed to carry astronauts to the moon
: first would ferry crews to the international space station. The gap
: between the initial manned launches of that vehicle in 2011 and the
: shuttle's planned retirement in 2010 was shortened from four years
: to one. And a new fleet of rockets to support human missions is
: expected to be cheaper and safer by building on existing parts of
: the shuttle.

: NASA managers have declined to be interviewed about the plan until
: its public release. One, however, said privately that Griffin's
: involvement has made a huge difference.

: "We [NASA] can no longer take a business-as-usual approach, and
: Mike Griffin clearly understands that," the manager said. "We have
: to be more financially and technically creative to do the things we
: need to do."

: Engineers debated for months whether to develop a heavy-lift rocket
: from parts of the shuttle or rely on improved versions of the Atlas
: and Delta boosters used by the Air Force to launch satellites.
: According to the study, they chose the shuttle-derived option
: because of lower cost and superior lifting ability.

: "[It's the] only viable solution given [the] time frame and current
: market," the study noted.

: The hardware and cargo required for lunar missions would lift off
: aboard a 40-story colossus built around the shuttle's external fuel
: tank. This unmanned booster would be developed between 2010 and
: 2018.

: Five of the shuttle's main engines and larger versions of its twin
: booster rockets would power the launcher. Some versions would be
: capable of carrying a hefty 125 tons into Earth orbit, making it
: almost the equal of the Saturn 5. The projected price tag of
: $540 million per launch is comparable to the cost of a shuttle
: flight.

: The giant booster would have a powerful new upper stage. This so-
: called Earth Departure Stage would be used to hurl spacecraft
: toward the moon. Also designed from the shuttle's fuel tank, it
: would be equipped with an upgraded pair of the same engines used on
: the Saturn 5's upper stages.

: NASA has decided to launch future astronauts on moon and space-
: station missions aboard a separate rocket derived from another piece
: of shuttle hardware.

: Starting in June 2011, astronauts would lift off to the station
: atop a modified version of the shuttle's pencil-shaped solid-rocket
: booster. The rocket's new second stage would be powered by one of
: the shuttle's main engines.

: The $280 million missions would free NASA from having to depend
: solely on the Russians for station flights after the shuttle's
: retirement. The same rocket later would be used to launch crews
: into low Earth orbit to begin trips to the moon. NASA estimates the
: launcher would be nine times safer than the shuttle.

: "We have ways to construct such vehicles using shuttle solid-rocket
: motors and external tanks and shuttle main engines," Griffin said
: of the new boosters Friday. "We think the existing components offer
: us huge cost advantages as opposed to starting from a clean sheet
: of paper, and that's what I've proposed doing."

: NASA managers plan to review the CEV's engineering design in July
: 2006 with the goal of having the spacecraft ready for a manned
: launch to the station in 2011. Having the CEV available as soon as
: possible could become critical if the White House rethinks the
: shuttle's 2010 retirement date because of continuing problems with
: hazardous launch debris during shuttle Discovery's liftoff Tuesday.

: The CEV will be strikingly similar to the Apollo command module but
: larger. Astronauts on future lunar flights will have more than
: twice the room.

: In another throwback to Apollo, the 12-ton capsule would be mated
: to a service module that provides power and propulsion during the
: journey to and from the moon. Crews returning home in the CEV would
: jettison the service module before making a fiery plunge through
: Earth's atmosphere and parachuting to the ground.

: The capsule then would thump down on land as Russian missions did
: instead of splashing down in the Pacific Ocean as Apollo flights
: did.

: NASA already has identified three possible landing sites in the
: Western United States: Edwards Air Force Base in Southern
: California's Mojave Desert, the Carson Flats area of Nevada and
: near Moses Lake in eastern Washington.

: The ship's flight path would carry it over the Pacific Ocean,
: minimizing the risk to people below if something went wrong. If
: necessary, the capsule would be capable of making a water landing.
: The CEV will have an expendable heat shield, and versions that go
: to the space station could be reused for up to 10 missions.

: In addition to the CEV, engineers have begun looking at designs for
: the lander that will carry astronauts from lunar orbit to the
: moon's surface and back. Development is scheduled to accelerate in
: 2010, with a spacecraft ready for flight by 2018.

: The lander's design follows the same general concept as Apollo's.
: It has two basic parts. The bottom descent stage is a four-legged
: platform with rocket engines that lower the craft to the moon's
: surface. A detachable upper ascent stage serves as a crew
: compartment and launches the astronauts back to lunar orbit when
: their mission is complete.

: The ascent stage's engines are designed to burn liquid-methane
: propellant. Small amounts of methane are thought to be present in
: Mars' atmosphere, creating the possibility that astronauts might be
: able to produce their own rocket fuel instead of carrying it with
: them.

: The lander would remain on the lunar surface for about a week. An
: airlock would allow a crew of four astronauts to leave the ship for
: moonwalks. The lander held only two astronauts during the Apollo
: missions.

: The craft is designed to carry up to 23 tons of cargo and could be
: used to rotate crews living at a lunar base.

: In recent months, NASA engineers have been debating some of the
: same issues their predecessors faced four decades ago. The result
: is a new blueprint similar to Apollo's but with features of von
: Braun's early Earth Orbit Rendezvous approach.

: Future lunar missions would launch aboard two separate rockets. The
: giant new 40-story booster would carry the lunar lander into space
: atop the fuel-filled Earth Departure Stage. Next, the CEV and
: service module would lift off aboard the smaller, modified shuttle
: booster.

: Once in low Earth orbit, the CEV would dock with the lunar lander.
: From there, the mission would be virtually identical to Apollo's.
: The Earth Departure Stage would rocket the spacecraft toward lunar
: orbit. Four astronauts would descend to the surface aboard the
: lander. A week or so later, they would lift off from the moon and
: dock with the CEV, which would carry them back to Earth.

: "You have to take the long view and not get yourself into a
: situation like before where we go to the moon and aren't positioned
: to build on it," astrophysicist Black said. "This approach makes a
: lot of sense if you are going on to Mars."

: Current plans call for a minimum of two lunar missions per year
: beginning in 2018.

: Crews also would try to take advantage of any available resources
: on the moon and live off the land. The goal is to eventually
: develop a lunar base.

: A likely location for an outpost is near Shackleton Crater at the
: moon's south pole, where scientists suspect there are relatively
: high levels of hydrogen, a potential fuel source, and the
: possibility of water ice. Missions would gradually build power,
: communication and navigation systems, and a place to live. Rovers
: more advanced than those during Apollo would be used to explore the
: surface.

: Other high-priority sites for exploration include the north pole,
: three locations on the dark side of the moon and the Sea of
: Tranquillity, where Apollo 11 made the first manned lunar landing
: in 1969.

: One of NASA's main reasons for returning astronauts to the moon and
: living there is to master the technologies and gain the experience
: needed for future human voyages to Mars. Detailed development of
: those expeditions is expected to begin about 2020, but the broad
: outlines already are starting to take shape.

: Four or five launches with the giant heavy-lift boosters would
: carry into orbit the mission's spacecraft and hardware. Before the
: six-person crew lifts off, however, an outpost with living
: quarters, power, communications and a return ship would land on the
: Martian surface by remote control.

: The astronauts' trip would take about six months each way. Once on
: Mars, the crew would spend 500 days exploring large areas of the
: surface and doing research, including the search for evidence of
: past or present life. Astronauts would attempt to tap the Martian
: environment for oxygen and water, two essential supplies, and
: liquid oxygen and methane, the two propellants that will power the
: landing craft.

: A massive solar storm in August 1972 was the largest radiation
: event ever recorded. Engineers are trying to develop CEV shielding
: to offer protection from a storm four times that strong. NASA
: estimates that an aluminum vehicle with moderate shielding would
: limit the chance of an astronaut getting sick from such an event to
: 2.9 percent, with a tiny 0.02 percent chance of death.

: The space agency assesses the lunar missions' overall risks as
: relatively small, mainly because of the use of proven systems and
: technology.

: NASA estimates the chance of a failure derailing a mission is less
: than 6.3 percent, with the chance of the crew dying at 1.3 percent.
: In contrast, a May 1962 risk analysis before the Apollo program
: concluded the chance of losing astronauts during the first attempt
: to land on the moon was 22 percent.

: Political challenges here on Earth pose a threat of a different
: sort. The program's cost already has stirred debate.

: The estimated $217 billion price tag is only $7 billion more than
: the projected budget for NASA's exploration office during the next
: 20 years. That estimate also includes developing new engines for
: the Earth Departure Stage. NASA now plans a cheaper approach that
: would modify engines used during Apollo.

: The money crunch will be greatest during the next five years while
: the shuttle is still flying. But over time, adequate funding for
: the plan appears likely, at least on paper, if the projects can
: manage to stay within their budgets.

: NASA's overall budget is expected to reach about $17 billion in
: 2006. If the agency averages only $20 billion annually during the
: next 20 years, it will receive a total of $400 billion. The
: estimated $217 billion exploration cost through 2025 represents
: 54 percent of that total. NASA already spends about half of its
: budget on human-spaceflight programs.

: The challenge will be to keep the projects on schedule and within
: budget. The plan also must survive three presidential elections and
: five new Congresses before astronauts again can walk on the moon.

: "It's going to take a long, persistent, patient effort," said Rep.
: Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., a member of the House Science Committee.
: "The question is: 'Will political leaders and the public continue
: that support for that length of time?'"

Now if they can only keep foam from falling off the shuttle ET,
then maybe NASA will be allowed to attempt such a grand plan. :)

Mark Reiff