Does Space Launch System rocket and new Orion craft will have chance to land on th...

[Pawelk198604]

Land on the moon?

[Canopus]

yes there are plans

[Kryten]

There are powerpoints, which is different. No funding has been released for design of any kind of lander, and the objectives for the SLS program spcifically don't include the Moon.

[Canopus]

There are powerpoints, which is different. No funding has been released for design of any kind of lander, and the objectives for the SLS program spcifically don't include the Moon.

Not yet but the SLS makes only sense if you go to the moon or asteroids.

[Burke112]

As far as I know, the main plan for the SLS/Orion program is landing astronauts on Mars and setting up a temporary habitat for them to live and conduct experiments (I believe five hundred days was the projected length of the stay), then returning them to Earth. The program also includes landings on near-Earth asteroids and missions to send astronauts into lunar orbit (which might be what you are referring to).

There are proposals to use the SLS/Orion to land on the moon, as well as to use it to put a new space station (Skylab II) in orbit at EML-2, and the spacecraft will certainly have the ability to conduct both of those missions, but as far as I know, they aren't yet planned. Let's keep our fingers crossed, though.

[Canopus]

Skylab II or Exploration Gateway Platform?

[Burke112]

Skylab II or Exploration Gateway Platform?

From what I heard, the idea is to use the SLS's upper hydrogen tank (retrofitted, of course) as a space station, similarly to how the Skylab was constructed out of a retrofitted Saturn V tank. I've never heard of the Exploration Gateway Platform -- I'll have to go Google it; it sounds interesting!

Apparently, the Mars expedition will use NTRs and orbital construction, and the near-Earth asteroid landing will research the collection of minerals from asteroids. That's definitely an interesting feature; hopefully, the techniques developed and/or researched during this program (NTR use, orbital construction, landing on and mining asteroids) will form the basis of future interplanetary missions and habitation. It seems far fetched, but hey, one can dream, right?

There's one other thing that I've been wondering -- since the Orion Service Module will be constructed in Europe, by the ESA, and based off of an earlier European design, would it be possible to include ESA astronauts (Euronauts?) on the missions it is sent on? Sending astronauts to Mars would be great in and of itself, but if a system was set up where not just American astronauts, but also other countries' astronauts, were involved, that would be a great precedent for developing greater cooperation between different countries' space agencies, which would definitely help in procuring funding for more ambitious space projects, as well as promoting greater cooperation between countries in other fields.

[deadshot462]

NASA's objectives keep getting changed by Congress almost on a yearly basis. Mars, Asteroid, Moon get interchanged as targets at every budget review.

In my opinion the most likely thing will be a Moon orbiting mission (similar to Apollo 8) with the Orion capsule.

[Kryten]

Moon orbiting mission has been planned almost from the start (as first and second SLS missions, the first being unmanned), but it's always been seen as just a test of the vehicle.

[astropapi1]

[Off topic] I think it's time for a sustained Moon orbiting station. It would make travel further than LEO much more common and it would be a logical step in Spaeeeehz colonization.

[Crush]

The problem with the Orion program is that there is no clear goal. The Apollo project had one definite goal: Land on the moon. That's why there was motivation to do it.

But the Orion program's goal is "We need to have a space program because we need one to do... uh... stuff... like maybe mars or asteroids or moon again or something". There is no clear purpose or direction behind it. That's why it will fail.

Edited July 5, 2013 by Crush

[astropapi1]

The Apollo project had one definite goal: Land on the moon. That's why there was motivation to do it.

And they also had loads and loads of money. Apollo was more than "space exploration for all mankind", it was also a political stunt to show russians how americans were better than them at space exploration. IIRC, NASA had 5% of the United State's total budget. That's a lot of money if you think about it.

[Pual24]

Honestly, NASA can't seem to get a straight target, not because they are incompetent, but mainly because their budget fluctuates. It saddens me to see how much money slows down exploration.

[Drunkrobot]

I'm being a bit ranty and off-topic here, but who else thinks that congress should be filled with younger people? A manned Mars mission is "planned" for 2030... how many people in congress right now will still be alive by 2030? If they were younger, or they set a much earlier date, then they have more reason to support such a project. Kennedy EXPECTED to be alive by 1970 when he made his moon speech.

Anyway, I don't have knowledge on any replacement for the cancelled "Altair" lander. Orion would definitely have the facilities for a modern command and service module though.

[Crush]

Money is what I meant with motivation - motivation to fund it.

I currently believe that the Chinese will be the first on Mars. The whole west lost all serious interest in space exploration, because they don't feel like they still need to prove something to each other anymore. The Americans were on the moon, the Russians had their Mir, the Europeans have their commercially successful Ariane rockets and they all together have their ISS and believe that's enough right now.

But the Chinese - they have the resources, the technology (mostly stolen, but still) and they are eager to show the rest of the world that they are no developing country anymore.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Crush

[Kerbface]

I think the US might pick up their game once China comes close to landing on the moon. They don't want to be the second best at something!

[jwenting]

I think the US might pick up their game once China comes close to landing on the moon. They don't want to be the second best at something!

not unless there's a 180 in attitude from the current administration. The current administration has openly stated the US is not exceptional and in should not aim to be in any way special.

They've effectively given on on the can-do attitude Americans have always been known for and replaced it with a cannot-do-its-too-expensive-and-risky attitude.

[Kerbface]

not unless there's a 180 in attitude from the current administration. The current administration has openly stated the US is not exceptional and in should not aim to be in any way special.

They've effectively given on on the can-do attitude Americans have always been known for and replaced it with a cannot-do-its-too-expensive-and-risky attitude.

Damnit... this is one of those areas where that attitude is useful...

[deadshot462]

The big issue with NASA is that its budget gets reviewed on a yearly basis by Congress, this makes it VERY difficult to maintain long term goals. Right now, the SLS's main goal is to keep jobs for people who used to work for the Space Shuttle. The celestial target can be changed all the time since NASA has jobs for its employees building a generic rocket that has no firm goal.

[BossSquirrelz]

Answering the OP:

In the long term, yes.

I lay the blame for the massive neglection and de-funding of NASA to congress, and the science-hating western mentality. And the fact the the US spends billions upon trillions of tax dollars on crap it really doesn't need.

[Nibb31]

not unless there's a 180 in attitude from the current administration. The current administration has openly stated the US is not exceptional and in should not aim to be in any way special.

They've effectively given on on the can-do attitude Americans have always been known for and replaced it with a cannot-do-its-too-expensive-and-risky attitude.

China is not getting anywhere near the Moon during "this administration" or the next. They are focused on their space station until at least 2025. After that, who knows? But it would take 10 to 15 years to land someone on the Moon.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Nibb31

[Nibb31]

I'm being a bit ranty and off-topic here, but who else thinks that congress should be filled with younger people? A manned Mars mission is "planned" for 2030... how many people in congress right now will still be alive by 2030?

I don't think age enters into the equation. The problem is that NASA is primarily a jobs program and that the way the US political system is set up, politicians put their local constituency above national priorities. That is no way to run a country. If they were defending national interests instead of the people or corporations from their own state, then NASA could have a clear goal.

Also, the US is on the brink of entering a new dark age. Congress spends too much time gutting education, science and health budgets and regulating womens' bodies, while at the same time too many people forge their "scientific" knowledge by watching the History Channel and listening to religious wackos. People are getting more stupid and that reflects on who they vote for, and the laws that their corporate-sponsored representatives end up passing. It's Idiocracy come true.

[Nibb31]

But the Chinese - they have the resources, the technology (mostly stolen, but still) and they are eager to show the rest of the world that they are no developing country anymore.

Actually, most of their space program is domestically-designed or licensed from the Russians. I don't think they have actually stolen much. Their aircraft industry on the other hand...

[Nibb31]

There's one other thing that I've been wondering -- since the Orion Service Module will be constructed in Europe, by the ESA, and based off of an earlier European design, would it be possible to include ESA astronauts (Euronauts?) on the missions it is sent on? Sending astronauts to Mars would be great in and of itself, but if a system was set up where not just American astronauts, but also other countries' astronauts, were involved, that would be a great precedent for developing greater cooperation between different countries' space agencies, which would definitely help in procuring funding for more ambitious space projects, as well as promoting greater cooperation between countries in other fields.

That is pretty much the deal, to get a European astronaut on board. However, the agreement only currently covers 2 service modules. That's it. There are also only 2 Orion flights that are actually scheduled, including one unmanned, and no funding for any more. After that, who know what happens? On the current budget, nothing much. Maybe NASA takes the design and gets Lockheed Martin to make another couple of SMs. Maybe the whole program is cancelled. It does seem crazy to maintain the infrastructure for a rocket that will only be launched every 2 or 3 years.

The main reason NASA passed the deal with ESA was to actually secure funding for those 2 first missions. It's easy for Congress to cancel domestic programs, but it's harder when there are other countries involved. The US has to meet its commitments with its international partners. That's the main reason the ISS hasn't yet been disbanded.

[jwenting]

I don't think age enters into the equation. The problem is that NASA is primarily a jobs program and that the way the US political system is set up, politicians put their local constituency above national priorities. That is no way to run a country. If they were defending national interests instead of the people or corporations from their own state, then NASA could have a clear goal.

Also, the US is on the brink of entering a new dark age. Congress spends too much time gutting education, science and health budgets and regulating womens' bodies, while at the same time too many people forge their "scientific" knowledge by watching the History Channel and listening to religious wackos. People are getting more stupid and that reflects on who they vote for, and the laws that their corporate-sponsored representatives end up passing. It's Idiocracy come true.

people vote for whomever promises them the most free money. As soon as 51% of the population depends on the government for their income, the country is lost.

That's the situation in large parts of Europe (in fact in many European countries it's far worse than 51%) and the US is dangerously close to the event horizon (well over 40%).

Nothing to do with corporate sponsors of politicians, everything with graft and vote buying by politicians (who accept that corporate sponsorship with one hand while already planning to utterly ignore that company in favour of a personal pet project they're funding with that money using the other hand).