Alternative Launcher For Returning To the Moon

DIRECT Launcher writes, "A grass-roots effort, based around a group of engineers, managers, and others involved in the US space program, is proposing an alternative launch vehicle for NASA to adopt for the new Lunar Exploration program. The new vehicle offers serious performance and cost savings totaling $35 billion over the next twenty years. The proposal was presented to NASA last week. The concept would make possible future Hubble Space Telescope servicing missions after Shuttle has retired, allow for all the remaining ISS elements to be launched after all, free up cash to fund the JIMO mission again, and also allow NASA to return to the moon three years early."

Save even more money, ditch the project

[Salvance]

I can understand why we'd want to go to Mars, but why try to scrounge up existing resources to get to the Moon? Sure, saving $35 Billion sounds great, but that's $35 Billion out of an estimated $108 Billion [cbsnews.com], which really means $200 Billion. The first time we went, we gained an unprecedented amount of technical knowledge, global press, and renewed patriotism from our people. The second time, we're planning on reusing parts to duplicate what's already been done. Who's going to care? And who's going to benefit other than the defense contractors?

This whole thing feels like when my wife comes home and says "look, I just saved $30 on this new pair of shoes" ... yeah, but you still spent $120 to make an addition to your 27 pair collection.

Re:Save even more money, ditch the project

[east coast]

The moon is a better test bed; less gravity, faster travel time from earth to target, easier to get there if there would happen to be a systems failure and we needed to rescue... We need to learn a bit more about remote lift offs and terrestrial bases on foreign bodies. The moon is a fine location. Besides, knowing as much as we do about it compared to Mars makes even more reason to go there for testing.

we also have a number of interests on the moon including mining and a space based observatory that will be cheaper and better than hubble if we can even get a small manned base going. It would probably be cheaper for these two projects than the HST and ISS infact.

You guys are missing the most important point...

[skogs]

Everybody so far commenting is simply complaining about wasting money, cutting jobs, reusing old stuff, rebuilding new stuff....you are missing the most incredible part of their proposal:

70 metric tons to orbit base
98 metric tons to orbit cargo vehicle

This compares to the current shuttle lift capacity of 16+ metric ton.

Son, packaged correctly, you could launch the entire remaining ISS sections into space at one time.

This is simply reusing some very basic lift parts and redesigning some new engines for the base of the fuel tank. Probably some reinforcement to the tank too for the added weight on top. Some new control and piping to the top for the rest of the vehicle....

I frankly don't know how they plan to get that much more thrust and lift capability out of those SRBs and new engines...but if they think they can do it, I'd be inclined to support them whole heartedly.

Even if they only made half their expected lift capacity, it would still a significant improvement.

How about launching 4 or 5 GPS satellites and a spy satellite all on one mission?

How about building a moon base?

How about putting a decent sized nuclear reactor in space to provide unlimited power instead of relying on solar panels?

Tonnage gets you everything.