I thought this was cute : http://space.com/news/060720_cev_orion.html . I could have sworn that NPR reported that the name for the next series of exploration missions was going to be called "Aries". But now they are reporting it to be called project Orion, for moon missions. Well, maybe they will use RTG's at least there, and that would be a start. Fitting for the name.
I hope beyond hope that this is going to be missions to establish permanent infrastructure on the moon, and not just another billion dollar game of golf. We waste too much money on conventional rocketry, to spend it frivolously on HDTV satellites and "trips" into space. We need to expand outward into space, and it would be refreshing for a change if NASA would say that for once. If you ever (which you probably do) check out their news briefs and conferences; they never refer to going into space as a means to an end of moving people outward. Why else would you continually go to space at the current price tag?
Oh well, at least we are headed in the right direction, if only still in 1st gear .
"...they never refer to going into space as a means to an end of moving people outward. Why else would you continually go to space at the current price tag?"
I agree that this should be the ultimate goal of space exploration. Why explore? To learn what is beyond this horizon. Why send humans there? To see a place and experience it in person; to learn more what is there; to stay long enough that one's children will know the place and call it home...and then to know that one's descendents will set their sights to explore beyond the next horizon...
The process enriches us and through it we become more than we were before.
I could have sworn that NPR reported that the name for the next series of exploration missions was going to be called "Aries". But now they are reporting it to be called project Orion, for moon missions.
If you read further down in the article, it says "In June, NASA announced that its crew launch vehicle, which would lift the CEV into space, would be named Ares 1, with Ares 5 reserved for a larger booster to haul cargo or a future Moon lander."
The CEV and its launch vehicle are two different things!
> We need to expand outward into space, and it would be refreshing for a change if NASA would say that for once. If you ever (which you probably do) check out their news briefs and conferences; they never refer to going into space as a means to an end of moving people outward.
I had just seen a page with a lot of quotes from Michael Griffin. Some of the things he's said, he does seem to understand it -even if congress doesn't, and the media doesn't.
" In 2004 testimony to Congress on the future of human spaceflight, he stated, "for me the single overarching goal of human space flight is the human settlement of the solar system, and eventually beyond. I can think of no lesser purpose sufficient to justify the difficulty of the enterprise, and no greater purpose is possible."
" I am an unabashed supporter of space exploration in general, and of human space flight in particular. I believe that the human space flight program is in the long run possibly the most significant activity in which our nation is engaged. For what, today, do we recall renaissance Spain, King Ferdinand, and Queen Isabella? Unless one is a professional historian, the memory which is evoked is their sponsorship of Columbus in his voyages of discovery. For what, in five hundred years, will our era be recalled? We will never know, but I believe it will be for the Apollo lunar landings if for anything at all. And this is entirely appropriate. Human expansion into space is a continuation of the ancient human imperative to explore, to exploit, to settle new territory when and as it becomes possible to do so. This imperative will surely be satisfied, by others if not by us."
...
"... to be important is not necessarily to be urgent, and it may be argued that we have many difficult problems in greater need of immediate attention and resources than is human space flight. But even recognizing this reality, space flight is sparingly funded. In round numbers, FY2003 U.S. budget outlays were approximately $2.1 trillion, while the U.S. population is just under 300 million, yielding an average liability of $7000 per person, or about $20 per day for each man, woman, and child in the nation. With the NASA budget at $15 B/year, the civil space program costs each person in the nation about $50/year, or less than 14 cents per day. A really robust space effort could be had for a mere twenty cents per day from each person! I spend more than that on chewing gum. We as a nation quite literally spend more on pizza than we do on space exploration. So I don't think we are overspending on space. As wealthy as the United States may be, it is certainly true that we can allocate only a very small fraction of that wealth to the development of human space flight. But we must allocate that fraction, and we must spend it wisely. I don't think we are doing enough of either."
...
" As an example of the mindset I advocate, I note that the United States has a Navy, which institution in fact predates our present form of constitutional government. Even in difficult times, we do not debate whether or not the United States will continue to have a Navy. We do not debate the Navy's function; by common understanding, it is the Navy's purpose to provide mastery and control of the high seas for the benefit of the nation. We may debate ways and means of achieving this, but withdrawal from the basic enterprise would be unthinkable. So it must be with human space flight. We are not yet to that point."
"A devotee of Truth may not do anything in deference to convention. He must always hold himself open to correction, and whenever he discovers himself to be wrong he must confess it at all costs and atone for it."
Monhandas K. Gandhi