Time: Returning To The Moon

Ah, to go back to outer space. The dream could come true. If only we can keep the politics aside, and maintain focus, and budget in order to get the job done. The U.S.A. will benefit from the results of this task that is for sure. Think Washinton can stay focused?

Returning To The Moon
Three decades after the last Apollo flew, new American crews may walk the lunar soil. Here's how they'll go
Time 03/20/2006
Author: Jeffrey Kluger
(Copyright 2006)

...

In January 2004 President Bush announced his plan to send Americans back to the moon and onto Mars. Those bold goalswhich NASA estimates it could achieve by 2018 and 2030, respectively would at last free the nation of the 25-year drudgery of the shuttle program. The idea raised eyebrows--not least because of its price tag, distant target dates and suspicious initial timing, at the start of the 2004 election cycle. In the two years since, however, funding has been forthcoming and design work has begun, with aerodynamic testing on scale models under way at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. While political and fiscal obstacles could still scuttle the whole plan, the ships taking shape in the NASA labs are winning deserved raves.

The thing that has made the shuttles such lethal disappointments is that they have tried to do too many things--fly like a spacecraft, land like an airplane, haul cargo like a truck. Part of the reason the Apollo ships succeeded was that they had an exceedingly clear goal: to fly to the moon and strictly obey the laws of simplicity and safety on the way. Both ships were also wisely mounted at the top of the booster that lifted them off the ground--keeping them away from the fire and foam that killed Challenger and Columbia.

The new ships will follow the old rules. The centerpiece of the stack will be the prosaically named Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), a descendant of the Apollo command module but for a few significant differences. For one thing, it will be bigger, able to carry four astronauts comfortably and six a bit more snugly--twice the load of the three-man Apollos.

For another thing, it will be equipped with solar panels, a sensible addition in a sun-drenched place like the inner solar system--and one that reduces the demands on fuel cells and batteries. It will also be able to either splash down in the water as the Apollos did or thump down under a parachute on dry desert. Finally, modern composite materials and computers will improve on the ungainly weight and clanking brain of the older ships.

...

The new lunar lander will be similarly improved, with updated electronics and materials. It too will be a larger ship than its predecessor, big enough to carry all four astronauts down to the surface while the mother ship idles empty in lunar orbit. ...

Two new rockets--both adapted from shuttle engines--will get all this hardware into space. The larger of the two will loft the lunar lander and other equipment into Earth orbit. A second, smaller rocket will follow, carrying the CEV. The crew vehicle and the lander will then link up and fly off to the moon.

...

The big question is less about NASA's technical wherewithal than about Washington's political will. The space agency is vetting contractors to build the ships, and the winning company may begin cutting metal by 2008. But Congress and the White House--a notoriously fickle bunch--must stay on board. The commitment the U.S. made to space from Sputnik through Apollo spanned four presidential administrations and seven changeovers on Capitol Hill. Only if leaders in the 21st century remain equally focused can they hope to match the accomplishments of their predecessors in the 20th.

And how!

Aerospace | Engineering