July 9, 2008: Constellation Program
 

You've probably heard NASA is winding down the shuttle program, and leaving it to the Russians to support the International Space Station.
You've probably also heard, their new mandate is to go back to the moon by 2020. This has been named the Constellation Program.

At the Johnson Space Center's Lunar Yard, they are already testing several equipment designs, so they must have started on the design phase, years ago.
I would guess it was back when gas was under $2 a gallon, because they planning on taking SUVs to the Moon. :eek:
http://cellar.org/2008/luna1.jpg

http://cellar.org/2008/luna3.jpg

http://cellar.org/2008/luna4.jpg

If there is no gravity on the moon, how would these vehicles stay on the ground? :confused:

There is gravity on any mass, just the greater the mass, greater the gravity. right?

there is gravity on the moon - but just 1/6th of the gravity we have to deal with on earth.

Same amount of inertia though..

That first car is sooOOOooOO lame.. I don't get it.

It would be a lot more reliable and cheaper if they just rode mountain bikes.

For that last picture, in my mind's eye, I can just see the astronaut leaping up to the door....

Why don't they just send a Segway and be done with it?

I like the bottom ones. They look like mobile outhouses: they come to you when you gotta go.
Actually, all the designs in the world can't hide the fact that manned space exploration is just not a good idea.
The Apollo moon flights were exciting, but the current crop of magnificent Landers, Rovers, and Orbiters (at least 5 planets!!) are the way to learn about things other-worldly.

There is zero ground clearance on the second one, how can it possibly go over any sort of planet surface?

Clod it looks like there's a pivot for a hydralic lift on the second one. The Segway is an apt comparison though. All these look like a triumph of advertising over common sense.

Surely they wouldn't fill those tires with air for the final design that goes to the moon? Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop!

since nasa already chopped and dropped their whips, they need to add thumpin systems to go with the hydraulics. "then i let the alpine play..."

Nice!

Great. Now they're gonna start NASCAR on the moon!

sound stages are pretty flat.

Can they do it in the age of high def?

it's OK, there's no gas prices on the moon

Thanks for the link, Bruce. I've been exploring the NASA site quite a bit--cool stuff.
I never saw that first rover, which may be at JSC, but just so astrotourists aren't 2/3 disappointed on their visit to Houston:
The lunar rovers in pics 2 and 3 were tested in the state of Washington:

NASA Tests Lunar Robots and Spacesuits on Earthen Moonscape ["Earthen"?]

Conditions on the moon will be harsher, but prototype NASA robotic vehicles and their developers braved sand storms and unprecedented temperature swings on sweeping dunes near Moses Lake, Wash. [halfway between Mount Rainier and Idaho], this month to prepare for the future.

http://david.farmnet.com.au/files/2007/10/jd2.jpg

Student astronaut, distracted by text messaging,
"splashed down" into the Sea of Tranquillity.

Teams from seven NASA centers and one university coordinated their activities on the Moses Lake Sand Dunes from June 2-13 to gain hands-on experience with specific technical challenges anticipated when humans return to the moon by 2020 and begin to explore the lunar surface and set up initial outposts.

While you're on that page, click "Photo Gallery" (under article) or "Gallery: Evaluating Lunar Concepts" (at right; same gallery).
Lookit what this other gallery page for the vehicle in pic 2 is called!
Live and animated videos.

FAIL!

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. Please, no.

I continue to be disturbed by certain issues of nomenclature:

:thumbsdn: ". . . the Constellation Program to send human explorers back to the moon, and then onward to Mars and other destinations in the solar system." Why is this program named after a grouping of stars, when the program is staying within the solar system?

:neutral: The launch vehicles (rockets) are named Ares, the Greek name for Mars, which is a planet, fine.

:thumbsdn: The crew vehicle (space capsule, not the SUV) is named Orion, which is a constellation but still has nothing to do with the Moon or the rest of our solar system.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/2...007e113280.jpg

Not 1950s sci-fi art but NASA artist's rendering of the lunar lander.

:neutral: The lunar lander is named Altair, which is the name of the biggest star in the constellation Aquila, the eagle. Hey, there's at least a connection with Neil Armstrong's lunar lander, the Eagle. . . . [Later] Oh, I see the lander page explains that.

:zzz: In surfing that quadrant of the NASA site, I saw various lunar rovers called NASA Concept Vehicle (pic 1 in Bruce’s OP), Crew Mobility Chassis Prototype (pic 2), and Crew Exploration Vehicle—blah.

To summarize: Here's a mission to the Moon, first, then elsewhere in the solar system. The names currently refer to a type of star grouping, a planet, a particular constellation, a star in a different constellation, and just some working titles. Where's any consistency?

NASA should rename everything to focus on the lunar mission. When the time comes, they can name further stuff after Mars and Jupiter, but it doesn't make any sense at any time to go outside the solar system for names for spaceships and such, when there are plenty of great names closer to Earth:

:thumbsup: Program: the Soleil Moon Frye Program (= solar system in general + Moon in particular + common east Asian pronunciation of "fly")

:drummer: Launch vehicle: the Keith Moon

:borg: Crew vehicle: the Ban Ki-moon

:apaw: Lunar lander: the Moon Landrieu

:driving: Crew Exploration Vehicle: the Moon Unit Zappa

:typing: Constellation Program Office (Johnson Space Center, Houston): Marion Moon Aldrin Domestic Engineering Center