Nasa's contract to have Lockheed build Orion

gasby writes: I would be more excited if the method of getting to the Moon, or indeed Mars, as planned, made any sense.Why not use the international space station as an assembly point for such a space vehicle rather than launch from Earth? Why not use the Moon itself as a base for a sustainable resource extraction program that may at least be able to offset some of the cost of further exploration?Assembling and launching a spacecraft from the Earth directly to Mars is the height of stupidity when for the same price a much larger craft that could provide artifical gravity and be partially self-sustaining could be sent from orbit.Unfortunately, the plan seems to be go from point A to point B without any intermediate steps, any thought, or any consideration of economics.

Archer Opterix writes: In the short term, and as a first step toward a journey that should take many, I can see your point, and do not disagree. My point is that returning to the moon, just to say you landed there again, is not what I would like to see. I would prefer a vision that includes permanant, sustainable, occupation of the moon and the colonization of the space itself around the Earth as a longer term goal. So far, I have only seen vague pronouncements concerning such longer term goals. However, some of that may be understandable considering, in the case of the Moon, one will need to gather more data to determine what is potentially usable that can be extracted. In the short term, and considering the factors you mention, I can see the rationale behind this initial move. However, sending people on multi-year missions to Mars, asteroids, and etc. is going to require artifical gravity and much larger living space than any ground-launched ship could provide, should such astronauts ever intend to return to Earth. Not only would years of weightlessness damage their bodies beyond the point of no return, but the physical and psycological needs of the crew would demand a large cargo and living space for such multi-year missions. As can be seen from the above, going to Mars using only an Orion ship is virtually impossible. My complaint is I have seen no detailed vision of how such a journey would be made. An example of short-sightedness IMHO, equivalent to allowing Skylab to reenter the atmosphere instead of coughing up a million to keep it in orbit. Is it really cheaper to start from scratch everytime instead of using resources that already exist? It is counterintuitive to me, perhaps there are reasons I am unfamiliar with at present. That's good news, do you have further details? I agree in general, and believe I understand your points. My concern is once we do land people on the Moon again, which has already been done, what happens next? You seem to have partially addressed some of this but I would like more details. Is there a plan for permanant habitation? Is it sustainable? how much will it cost and what are the benefits? Are there any plans for the current or any further space stations to act as intermediate points between the Earth and Moon so that vehicles requiring less energy and even greater versatility may be used between each point?I think we are not so much in disagreement as you are speaking short term benefits while I am discussing longer term implications.Unfortunately, I have seen the (hu)manned space exploration effort botched before due to a lack of vision. I think we would both agree that we don't want to see that happen again.

riVeRrat writes: Thanks, I hope that NASA continues to research, at least to some small degree, lower-cost alternatives while also sustaining a viable space program. There may be another way of looking at this. A considerable time ago, I read that for each dollar spent on NASA, $10 of GNP was generated due to the creation of new products. The same source also stated for each dollar spent in the defense department $0.33 of GNP was generated.Under such circumstances, space exploration should be considered an investment, while defense, is an unfortunately necessary expenditure.My main argument is that whether it be NASA or the DOD, I just want to see the money spent wisely and not wasted as has happened in the past. I think everyone agrees with that.