Keith Cowing continues to live blog the Exploration conference today:

Cooke is going through a standard recitation of why we explore, why go back to the Moon, etc. It is fine for NASA folks do this once or twice at a meeting of the faithful (such as this), but I have to wonder why NASA folks feel compelled to spend so much time on this with an audience that is already convinced - except, perhaps, to serve as cheerleaders, I suppose. This is the fourth time the VSE story has been told here.

...Tony Lavoie is speaking now. He opened by making sure everyone knew that these architectural depictions in the fancy graphics were "notional" (NASA's favorite word to make sure they can wiggle out of something later), "points of departure", "Point in the sand" a "Point at which to engage" etc. This is one of NASA's odd habits - on one hand they wave this new architecture around so as to demonstrate to the external world that they have done something and that they can make decisions - and then they turn around and warn people that what they see on the screen (to illustrate the very same architecture) is not what they may get. Hardly what you do to inspire confidence among external observers.

I see that the only good thing Keith has to say is to praise a video produced by Administrator O'Keefe. Keep licking those boots...

Why the Moon?

The themes are:

1. Using the Moon to prepare to go to Mars.
2 Going back to the Moon to learn.
3. Expansion of human presence to the Moon.
4. The moon offers new resources for our society and economy.
5. Advance peaceful international cooperation.
6. Public engagement.

The order may be controversial yet is the list flawed?

Isn't 2 part of 1?

I agree with Keith on the repetitious recitation of the VSE story, it's not needed and were I there I'd bee very annoyed to have to sit through such time and time again.

The reminders that current plans are "notational" are needed however, IMHO, since as sure as the sun rises something will look different down the road and someone will raise questions about what "errors" led to the change, why the "deception" or even "you lied to us earlier". Not necessarily those at the meeting but the MSM at large reporting on the meeting via osmosis (or whatever means the MSM uses to report on things they know nothing about).

Keith has also posted a link on his site to his being interviewed on "PBS Newshour". I just listened to it and he done an excellent job, again IMHO.

We cannot live on the moon outside of a pressurized environment that also provides radiation protection. The same is true of Mars, and every other planetary body in the solar system besides Earth. Maybe they need to make a better case for going to Mars.

Didn't the first concepts for the Apollo lunar lander look a lot like the current lunar lander concept designs? And for various reasons we ended up with something that looks pretty different. Same thing will happen this time.

Didn't the first concepts for the Apollo lunar lander look a lot like the current lunar lander concept designs? And for various reasons we ended up with something that looks pretty different. Same thing will happen this time.

The earliest LEM drawings had the basics right - the descent stage and ascent stage ended up in the final design. The problem is that the early versions were simply too heavy. Over a period of years, the design evolved to reduce weight. Some ideas were both radical and brilliant, such as eliminating the seats. This not only saved the weight of the seats (the astronauts stood up when flying the LM), it allowed them to reduce the size of the windows, saving even more weight. They were literally working to save ounces.

The same evolutionary process will almost certainly happen with future lander design and for the same reason. The advantage now is that they can start with the lessons learned by Grumman and not have to reinvent the wheel.

NASA has to put "notional" on the drawings so that the eventual contractors can propose something that looks different. It's all about procurement CYA.

>> Didn't the first concepts for the Apollo lunar lander look a lot
>> like the current lunar lander concept designs?

> The earliest LEM drawings had the basics right - the descent stage
> and ascent stage ended up in the final design. The problem is that the
> early versions were simply too heavy.

I'm not sure what you mean by "earliest drawings." The original Direct Ascent lander was indeed huge, but that weight incorporated the functions of the command/service module as well.

When NASA began to consider Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, the earliest drawings were generally single stage and much lighter than the final LEM design:

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4002/images/fig8.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4205/ch3-5.html

> Over a period of years, the design evolved to reduce weight. Some ideas
> were both radical and brilliant, such as eliminating the seats.

They also added a lot of things that were not in the original Langley designs. To give you an idea of the relative size, the final LEM was about 32,000 pounds. That's about twice the weight of the proposed Lunar Gemini *and* a one-man lander.

Translation: Keep the money coming, folks.