Slashdot Mirror
Lockheed Martin Wins Contract to Build Mars Lander
Lord_Slepnir writes "Lockheed Martin has won a contract to build the Orion crew exploration vehicle that will eventually take humans to the moon and then on to Mars. This vehicle will hopefully also replace the aging space shuttle fleet. According to NASA the vehicle will have manned missions by 2014 and moon missions by no later by 2020."
Lockheed Martin has won a contract to build the Orion crew exploration vehicle that will eventually take humans to the moon
Great, the US will finally make it to the moon.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Of course yes, there is a whole different social reason to go there and whatever, and times have changed..
Obliterate advertising!
"NASA told the contractors to build a capsule that looks just like Apollo"
Extra points were awarded to Lockheed for their proposal to use vacuum tubes.
The title of this story is wrong -- Lockheed Martin just won the contract for the Orion Crew & Service Module (CSM). The CSM is the party which will transport astronauts around in space, and land them back on Earth. The actual lunar lander, the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM), hasn't had its contract awarded yet, to say nothing of a "Mars Lander."
Of course, all this is rather confusing. I follow space news more closely than most, and I often get confused myself. Fortunately, Wikipedia's article on Project Constellation (the overall architecture) has a nice overview of what all the pieces are and how they fit together.
That said, I really wish that NASA would spend this money on the Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems program instead, accomplishing the same objectives in a more cost-effective manner. With COTS, companies only get paid if they succeed. NASA will instead be spending $3.9 billion (assuming there aren't cost overruns) just to get a capsule, while giving a total of $500 million (split between 2 companies) to COTS in order to get both rockets and capsules. To top it off, the COTS vehicles are scheduled to be completed years before the Lockheed Martin capsule is ready.
The Space Frontier Foundation has an interesting whitepaper arguing for why COTS should get they money instead of the Orion program.
This is the age old debate that killed the Apollo program in the 1970's. People asked the same basic question, "Why spend all this money to go to the moon. We've been there done that. We have starving people still on earth and wars and other bad things we could solve." There is also a voice withing the scientific community, most notably comming from Carl Sagan, that robots can do it faster, cheaper, and arguably better.
If NASA went totally robotic, yes they may learn things, but public interest and their budget to do such missions would shrink as a few nerdy folks in the bowls of mission control would actually care.
Case in point: the current mars rovers that are STILL going around Mars. Spirit and Oppertunity have been wildly sucessful way beyond their initial expectation, yet when was the last time you heard a news report about how well the mission as gone? The arguement goes, the less the public sees pretty pictures (like from hubble) or having people fly the missions, the less the public cares. The less the public cares, the more funds go else where to other things and missions continue to scale back.
Frankly, NASA's $15B budget is meager considering they are one of the few outfits that spends money on Basic Research. Basic research is what yields new technologys that help keep the economy going and improves daily life. It's thinks like that that yielded us many of the devices we use every day. I'm not going to go into them all, but you can read other posts about it.
Here is my arguement.
Fact: If humanity is going to survive, we have to get off this rock.
Also, given the times, sending people to the moon and mars is something that could be used to rally people together. Let's face it, there is a lot of bad things on the horizon. Militant Islam is going to be a problem until enough brave men stand up instead of doing nothing. (I'm sorry, but there are some things going on now that rhymes, as Mark Twain would say, with what happened in the 1930's.) Also you have new global economic battlelines being drawn between the US, EU, and China. With all that going on, reaching for the stars is something, if sold to the people, could turn things around.
Then there is this: if not us, who? The Chinese? Frankly the Chinese would be the type to land on the moon and start mining for resources and say: "Screw the moon treaty, what are you going to do about it?" The Europeans? So far they've had no interest in doing so... If the US gets back to the moon and keeps the mentality of using it for exploration and scientific purpose, it continues a presenant that is hard to break politically.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
1. CO2 (from atmosphere) + 4 H2 (from Earth) -> CH4 (rocket fuel) + 2 H20
2. 2 H20 (from 1) -> 2 H2 (feed back into 1) + O2 (oxygen for rocket fuel)
You fly to Mars with just enough fuel to get you there, create your own fuel from the Martian atmosphere, and fly back. To make things less risky, we send the first one unmanned, so there's a return vehicle on the surface of Mars all fueled up when humans arrive.
The 300 tons is only if you insist on bringing the fuel for your return journey along with you.
This is clearly described in The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin. Surprised more people haven't read that.