Evan Burton Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Thirty-seven years ago today, Project Apollo put the first humans on the surface of the Moon. The next time the U.S. launches its astronauts to Earth's natural satellite, they will do so as part of Project Orion, collectSPACE.com has learned. NASA intends to use the moniker Orion as both the title for its next generation manned craft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), and as the project's name. This approach is modeled after the 1960's program when Apollo Command Modules launched astronauts under Project Apollo. Under Project Orion, NASA would launch crews of four astronauts aboard Orion capsules, first to Earth orbit and the International Space Station and then later to the Moon. Two teams, one led by Lockheed Martin and the other a joint effort by Northrop Grumman and The Boeing Co., are currently competing to build the CEV. NASA is expected to select the winner in September. In June, NASA announced that its crew launch vehicle, which would lift the CEV into space, would be named Ares 1, with Ares 5 reserved for a larger booster to haul cargo or a future Moon lander. At the time, NASA's Associate Administrator for Exploration Scott Horowitz said that the reason he wasn't also releasing the name of the CEV at the same time had to do with the legal process related to federal trademarks. "We have to make sure we aren't infringing on any copyrights or anything," Horowitz said, describing how Ares was selected. "You have to go through that whole process and that just takes time." At the same June 30th press conference, Constellation program director Jeff Hanley said that the name for the CEV was close to being finalized. "We are trading three or four names at this point. There is a running, leading candidate that of course, I can't talk about yet because we have to go through a process to have it vetted and approved. Hopefully, I'd like to think that in a month we'd be able to role that out," said Hanley. NASA spokesperson Dolores Beasley told collectSPACE, a SPACE.com partner, today that NASA did not have a name for the CEV at this time. Yet a publicly-accessible federal trademark search shows that NASA was granted the use of Orion on July 14, 2006 for use with "command modules" and "crew capsules", as well as crew and cargo launch vehicles. Sources close to the agency confirmed to collectSPACE that the name Orion was in the final stages of approval. Earlier documents obtained in January by collectSPACE used the names Antares and Artemis as 'notional' titles for the CEV. Orion will soon officially replace those other names for internal and external use, though when NASA will announce Orion is not yet known. In addition to its association with Greek mythology, which includes tales of Apollo and Artemis, Orion is also one of the most recognizable constellations in the night sky, that of the embattled hunter. Project Orion was also the title given to a 1960s project to design a nuclear pulse-driven spacecraft. http://www.space.com/news/060720_cev_orion.html *************************** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle *************************** Now, if I wanted to make a point, I might say: Why would NASA base future programmes on systems that didn't work? They could easily say "New times - let's start from scratch" and no-one would question this. Instead, they base their programme on a system that supposed was unable to work. Why not, with better knowledge, better technology, do it right this time? *************************** See what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 "TO THE MOON AND BEYOND !!!!" ( Buzz Lightyear ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 (edited) "TO THE MOON AND BEYOND !!!!" ( Buzz Lightyear ) Hi, Duane...welcome back from Siberia...and thanks to those who assisted you. I just had a thought. What IF the guys at NASA have finally figured out a way to ACTUALLY go to the moon now that was not available forty years ago...and they go there and take lots of photos AND THE PHOTOS LOOK NOTHING LIKE THE MOONSCAPES of Apollo. Will they have some 'splaining to do, Lucy? Jack Edited October 19, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 LOL ... Thanks for the welcome back Jack ... "Splaining to do " indeed ! .... Of course if nasa is smart they will just re-use some of the old Apollo moonsets and then they will have nothing to explain , except for maybe why the Moon looks like a lunar soundstage . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Duane...now that you are back from exile, maybe you would like to post an image for me. It is a very mysterious Apollo image which I would like to get an explanation for. I know the "experts" will demand a file number, but I do not have it handy. But with their expertise, surely they will recognize it and explain it easily. I am about to email it to you. Thanks. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 19, 2007 Share Posted October 19, 2007 Your welcome Jack .... That is a strange one . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 It would help to see what that was cropped from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 It would help to see what that was cropped from. But that would give away what it is ... You're suppossed to guess how such a ridiculous looking image could have possibly been photographed on the Moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 20, 2007 Author Share Posted October 20, 2007 But that would give away what it is ... You're suppossed to guess how such a ridiculous looking image could have possibly been photographed on the Moon. Without context, it is pointless. Has the crop been enlarge / reduced / rotated? Which mission? Probably most important - what do you claim is wrong / in the image? You might as well claim this is faked: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 It would help to see what that was cropped from. But that would give away what it is ... You're suppossed to guess how such a ridiculous looking image could have possibly been photographed on the Moon. If I had to guess, it's a rotated, cropped, and scaled bit of the reflection in someone's visor. Can't tell what mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 It would help to see what that was cropped from. But that would give away what it is ... You're suppossed to guess how such a ridiculous looking image could have possibly been photographed on the Moon. If I had to guess, it's a rotated, cropped, and scaled bit of the reflection in someone's visor. Can't tell what mission. What are the images within the photo? Yes, it is cropped from an Apollo photo. The file number is irrelevant. What are all the strange things photographed? The Hasselblad captured clear images of SOMETHING...but what? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 (edited) It would help to see what that was cropped from. Its AS17-134-20387 Here is an enlarged crop that has not been stepped on as much as the one Duane posted. The "object" in question appeaars to be nothing more than garden varity visor smudges and scratches, most likely caused by putting the the right side visor up and down using a dirt covered, gloved hand...or the salute from the frame before, 20386. When comparing the original NASA image to the one posted for White, you really have to wonder why White needed to rotate the image, greatly alter the contrast to reduce important detail and omit the frame number. Was he trying to decieve or hide something? Clearly his alteration of the image did not improve the quality, in fact it did just the opposite. The intellectually honest question is WHY? Edited October 21, 2007 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 How many times will Jack waste other people's time with the same absurd stunt, posting a small detail croppedfrom an Apollo image and insinuate it is anomoulous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 Well picked up Craig! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 Craig didn't "pick up" on anything ... I submitted that same exact Apollo photograph here yesterday morning , explaining that the visor reflection contained a spotlight and one tiny little elf of an astronot .... but for some strange reason that moderated post never got posted ... I guess it got lost in the shuffle somewhere . If you should happen to find that post of mine , could you please post it for me now Evan ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now