I am amazed at the lack of discussion on the "end" of the LPRP and the lack of any missions past LRO

It's not the end of LPRP. It's partly a budget bargaining point, and partly just a delay. If people are not setting foot on the Moon until 2019 we don't need the next few landers until about 2015.

The problem is all rooted in the conflict between parts of the Vision speech. Finish the Station and retire the Shuttle - then go to the Moon. But if you don't start work on Orion until the Shuttle is gone, there's an unacceptable hiatus in US human space access. So Griffin is trying to squeeze in the Orion design work earlier than Bush mandated - and good for him. It will all shake itself out. NASA needs more money, but if it doesn't get it, it can go as it can pay, and that's not a problem either.

Phil

Doug does not like discussions about politics or manned spaceflight here, an opinion I don't share ecspecially concerning politics (everything is politics). But I have to respect his opinion. I believe this is one reason why the cancellation of missions after LRO is not much discussed here. The program is very heavy related to manned spaceflight (finding and checking out landing sites, in situ propellant production etc.) and less about (classic) science. It is also a child of the VSE (politics). Besides this it has not been much progressed besides LRO (But we are talking about Neptune orbiters too.). Phil, we could discuss a delay too.

So it is imo the relation to politics and manned spaceflight.

Analyst

Apologies if I'm out of loop here, but who's Chris?

Doug, of course

I've always liked the name Chris - but getting mine changed, by deedpoll, would be an un-necessary expense.

Doug

As I suggested earlier in this thread, the lunar robotic program, not necessarily under that name, is taking shape again.

http://ssedso.gsfc.nasa.gov/initiatives/lu...unar_GSFCV2.pdf

Phil