'Tranquility Base Here, the Altair has Landed'

Good grief, NASA. I'm sure there are at least some people there who remember that the Altair was a cheesy looking computer kit from the 70s. That's the first thing that came to my mind. Where are the PR people at NASA these days?

Just noticed that the "moon" rocket components are named "Ares". Good grief again! What are they thinking? Don't they realize that Ares is Mars? Couldn't they come up with a lunar name for the moon rockets, Selene or something like that? Even if they are thinking "constellation," Ares doesn't fit with Orion and Altair (i.e., not a star).

With regard to using the name of a star, perhaps it will help to remind people that we are in fact heading for the stars, the Moon merely being the next step.

"A journey of a thousand miles....."

In response to Doc Savage, the Ares family of rockets are being designed for President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration. That plan culminates with sending a manned mission to Mars, not just returning us to the moon. With that in mind it is entirely appropriate that the rockets be named Ares.

The name Ares was specifically chosen to convey its applicability (eventually) to crewed Mars exploration; Constellation is ACTUALLY all about developing a solar system exploration capability, not solely returning to the Moon. THIS is NASA's greatest PR failure associated with the VSE; they consistently fail to portray each individual component of the VSE in its proper context in their ongoing campaign to force admiration of their vaulted ESAS lunar architecture onto the public and industry. (Dennis Wingo's recent essay on SpaceRef smartly touched on important elements of this point (much more eloquently than I do here), neatly citing some wonderful words from President Bush & his science advisor John Marburger.) NASA unfortunately has done an incredible job of underselling the VSE, labeling it in the media's mind (intentionally or not) as nothing more than "Apollo on Steroids."
Regarding "Altair," I personally find the association with a 70s home computer less distasteful than the obvious homage to the Eagle of the Apollo program itself; isn't it about time that NASA let go of the shackles of its (rightfully) glorious past so it can start pursuing innovation again? Consider: Every lunar mission will require EOR AND LOR? Two launches? Parachutes? Water landing? Separate, throw-away descent and ascent lunar-lander stages? Even the Apollo folks appreciated that their designs were driven as much by expediency as by their limited, sortie-based exploration scheme.
Yes, names are important. But if we truly are supposed to be implementing a 21st-century solar system exploration infrastructure, why are we laying its foundation on such a limited, disposable, inelegant, flimsy architecture that is derived——out of context, mind you——from 40-year-old thinking?

Being a serious sci-fi fan, I was immediately struck by the classic conection that the Altair system(actually planet Altair-5) was the destination in the 1956 sci-fi classic, "Forbidden Planet". A synopsis written by "Bob the Moo" follows:
"A space ship has carried out the year long journey from Earth to the remote planet Altair-5 with orders to check on a scientific posting there. They find only one small compound on the whole planet – home to scientist Dr Edward Morbius, his daughter Altaira and a fantastic robot called Robby. Learning of the deaths of the others of the original group, Commander Adams decides to stay until he can contact Earth for further orders. However 'something' else is on the planet with them and the ship is subject to sabotage of key equipment. Things escalate when members of the crew are attacked and the full extent of the dangers on the planet become more and more clear."

About that 40 year old thinking. Technology has changed, but not physics. Computational power will have increased exponentially, but not rocket power. Lift, thrust and gravity all work the same as they did back then. Some of the materials may change but not the basics; most of the design is as eloquent as it is going to get until there is a breakthrough in engine design.
Ion drive is a possibility for the distance between the Earth and Mars, but not for heavy lifting from the Earth to the Moon or even low orbit. Maybe a rocket with wings that would take advantage of aerodynamics to fly to the edge of the atmosphere would work, but I don’t know. Then you would have to start thinking about SCRAM jets and other engine types that are more theoretical than proven. One more idea that would work is separate launch vehicles for humans and cargo. Separating the two would greatly lessen the risk losing astronauts.

To Jeff,
Regarding the immutable laws of physics versus the Architecture's lack of elegance:
I am suggesting that achieving the delta V's necessary to repeatedly reach the lunar surface and return to Earth using ONLY rocket power (and disposing of those rockets at both ends of the cislunar system each time) is terribly inelegant——and fragile, and expensive, in the long term, especially when our interim objective (prior to heading out further afield) is the establishment of a sustainable lunar outpost.
[And while launching cargo and personnel on different boosters has certain merits (safety being only one of the manageable variables), the oft-forgotten Gemini program taught us the logistical challenges of dual-launch operations. If there's one thing the shuttle program and its many launch delays has demonstrated, getting off the Earth's surface is the single most likely pinch-point for ANY space operation we undertake.]

As for positing that 40-year-old thinking isn't the issue but that the physics remaining the same necessarily constrains our options: I disagree. The options open up if you are willing to look beyond the limitations of a throw-away EOR-LOR horizon:
>>What about aerobraking back into Earth orbit with on-orbit vehicle refurbishment?
(Already executed by some of our planetary probes (aerobraking) and on-orbit refurbishment (shuttle repair flights));
>>Tethers? (A challenging technology but it offers a delta-V potential that has already been demonstrated);
>> Earth-orbit & lunar-orbit refueling? (An absolutely essential component of any long-term space exploration & exploitation activity);
>> Reusable SSTO Lunar Vehicles, with refueling on both ends? (Unlike with Earth's gravity well, SSTO operations (up & down) are currently feasible in the 1/6th G of the Moon);
Alternate rendezvous trajectories/modes exploiting the Earth-Moon Lagrangian points? (Decades of analysis have explored schemes that maximize efficiency, flexibility, and safety over the long-term).
>> Other engineering alternatives exist regarding all points of the lunar return opportunity; none of these are mentioned in any NASA material. This conveys the distinct impression that the EOR-LOR ESAS is "locked in." When we are talking about establishing the foundation for the long-term exploration of the entire solar system, why is this so? Is it right that NASA, in spending govt research dollars, intentionally shy away from exploring new enabling technologies and constrain it's thinking to the lowest, least risky, smallest-payoff alternatives?

What I most strongly fear is that our current baseline architecture, selected under the political-expedient shadow of inadequate budgeting from above is, like the 1&1/2-stage shuttle configuration and high-inclination/limited alpha-module layout ISS configuration selected before it——for the exact same reason, mind you, is a matter of our govt (again) being penny wise and pound foolish. The true irony is that while some in NASA management declare the shuttle and ISS mistakes and missteps that they would rather had not happened, they are making, in the big picture, the exact same mistakes again.
When are we going to see visionary thinking in the engineering (and necessary funding by Congress) to meet the challenge of the visionary promise of the VSE itself?

The man in the moon broadcasts to
earth- Someone is waving from Altairs window! Why it's the president, Rove, Dick, Condi! What are you saying? Oh- Ok
You want to come back home because you thought you were getting on air force one in a dark hanger. Ok I'll pass the word to the new president.

Fancy names mean squat when NASA doesn't have a single reliable spacecraft in its fleet.

@Bob Mahoney,

Maybe you could cut NASA a bit of slack. The public has shown about 0% tolerance for mission failure that results in crew loss. Not to mention that NASA itself doesn't like having to explain those deaths.

When the shuttle was grounded, NASA was able to to rely upon the boring, much disparaged Russian systems. The Russians have barely changed their methods in 40 years and they have the best reliability stats in the business.

NASA has to get crews to their destination and back again. Lots of failure modes aren't going to be fixable when you're on mission. Which water recycler would you rather have in your ship, the one that is cutting-edge, small, elegant, efficient, and breaks down every 2 days, or one that is an old design, clunky, and dead reliable?

The same goes for every other system on board. Lots of these are life support systems too. Reliability has got to be a key design goal and that means conservative designs, like it or not.

When the Apollo 13 mishap occurred, the electronics had to tolerate cold and moisture way outside of anticipated normal conditions. Had those systems failed the results could have been far worse than what happened. That's just one example of how conservative design can save your bacon.

Change will happen of course. However don't expect your aero-braking, tether deploying, Lagrange transiting, lunar orbital refuelling, SSTO Rescue-1 vehicle (run by Captain Scarlett of course) to appear all at once.