• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

To the Moon!

Mercutio

Penultimate Amazing
M
Joined
Mar 31, 2003
Messages
16,279
ABC News is reporting that NASA now are planning to return to the moon, in 2018.

Story here.

I bet Bad Ast is having fun with this.
 
What the hell's the point? Really. Seriously. Been there, did that. Sure, it's a great place to put a telescope. But that's probably not what they're planning. As an astronomer, I'd much rather see that few billion going towards research than into setting foot on the Moon and Mars. The CNN story on it a few days ago seemed to think that we'd be able to mine the Moon for fuel, or something like that. Why would the Moon have fossil fuels? Did they think this through? Arghh. Just so sick of this administration. They seem to think they can ignore and undermine science for 5 years and then come up with this 'scientific motive' to distract people from what they've done thus far - while I know few actual scientists who would spend that kind of money to return to the Moon.
 
eri said:
The CNN story on it a few days ago seemed to think that we'd be able to mine the Moon for fuel, or something like that.
Click to expand...
This part is true, though not for fuel we'll be able to use any time soon.

The Moon is rich in Helium-3, which is rare on Earth. Helium-3 is the ideal fuel for nuclear fusion because its reaction is completely non-radioactive, unlike fusion involving hydrogen isotopes.
 
geni said:
China.
Click to expand...


Right on. I wonder if the proposed time table is geared around a response to an anticipated Chinese launch? I would assume that we (the USA) have intelligence assets in the Chinese space program that would be used to help guide US Space policy.

However, my cynical side thinks that there's something else going on - I don't know what? Otherwise, why the >10 years till launch if the program will be geared around Off-the-shelf hardware? Doesn't off-the-shelf technology imply a less technically challenging program that should take much less time than the original Apollo program? Or am I missing something?
 
joe1347 said:
However, my cynical side thinks that there's something else going on - I don't know what? Otherwise, why the >10 years till launch if the program will be geared around Off-the-shelf hardware? Doesn't off-the-shelf technology imply a less technically challenging program that should take much less time than the original Apollo program? Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Well, even with OTS hardware, as it were, the missions would be longer, more ambitious, and with more people.

Also, Apollo was designed as a 'just get there and back' program (not that NASA didn't want to stay), whereas this program is supposed to be more permanent.
 
joe1347 said:
However, my cynical side thinks that there's something else going on - I don't know what? Otherwise, why the >10 years till launch if the program will be geared around Off-the-shelf hardware? Doesn't off-the-shelf technology imply a less technically challenging program that should take much less time than the original Apollo program? Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Cost. In practice shuttle stuff isn't really Off-the-shelf (they blew all their spare parts on the replacement shuttle). In the short term NASA still has it's ISS comitments as well. the longer you streach it the lower the cost per year is.
 
I heard this news today and was ecstatic. Finally, we are doing something worthwhile.

Our destiny as humans lies in the heavens, not sitting around here bickering on this rock.
 
So we can float around bickering in space instead? :)

Clearly this moon plan is to further distract the public from the fact that we already have alien-derived spacecraft that can, and often do, zip over to the moon for lunch and back.
 
BS Investigator said:
I heard this news today and was ecstatic. Finally, we are doing something worthwhile.

Our destiny as humans lies in the heavens, not sitting around here bickering on this rock.
Click to expand...

Don't you remeber everyone getting all excited a while back over Bush anounceing a mars trip? Do you really belive this wont go the same way?
 
Regardless of what the destiny of the human race may be, the fact is that we simply don't have the technology to exploit the moon or Mars in a useful fashion, and we won't for a long, long time. These little rock-gathering trips are just a colossal waste of money.

Any space exploration at our current level of development should be unmanned. For the same cost as this "Apollo on Steroids" program, we could launch literally hundreds of probes all over the solar system, not to mention bigger and better orbital telescopes, rovers, etc. What we need now are science-oriented missions and testbeds for new technology, not another crate of moon rocks.

Jeremy
 
toddjh said:
Regardless of what the destiny of the human race may be, the fact is that we simply don't have the technology to exploit the moon or Mars in a useful fashion, and we won't for a long, long time. These little rock-gathering trips are just a colossal waste of money.
Click to expand...

No, these "little" missions are how we ADVANCE the technology.

As I heard someone say the other day, if columbus had waited until the 747 was invented to go exploring, the world would be much different.
 
I am in complete agreement with toddjh. Although NASA claims this project will not take money from other science missions, it is a fact that a hell of a lot more science could be accomplished with that money if it were used for unmanned missions. Many interesting projects have been delayed or scrapped because most of NASA's budget is wasted on useless, but romantic, manned projects.
 
El_Spectre said:
No, these "little" missions are how we ADVANCE the technology.
Click to expand...

What miraculous new technology is "Apollo on Steroids" going to test? Cutting-edge CO2 filters? The absolute latest in golf cart technology? In short, what is Bush's moon plan going to accomplish that we couldn't do right here?

Testbed missions don't have to be manned, and they don't have to be round-trip. One-way missions are a lot cheaper because you don't have to waste energy carrying around all that extra fuel for the return trip.

Jeremy
 
toddjh said:
Testbed missions don't have to be manned, and they don't have to be round-trip. One-way missions are a lot cheaper because you don't have to waste energy carrying around all that extra fuel for the return trip.

Jeremy
Click to expand...
Plus, 99% of the effort in manned missions is devoted to keeping the people alive and returning them safely.

Plus, most of the non-life support technology that would be needed for manned missions would be needed for robotic missions, to. So it makes more sense to concentrate on unmanned missions in the near future. Keep the focus on science, not romantic adventures.

Cassini, Deep Impact, the Mars Rovers and Orbiters, and the Spitzer Telescope have returned a wealth of knowledge about our solar system and the universe. Any one of them has advanced science far more than the ISS has...

The fact that satellites needed to provide continuous monitoring of Earth's environment may be scrapped to fund manned missions leads one to wonder if Bush has a hidden agenda in pushing for manned exploration...
...
 
toddjh said:
What miraculous new technology is "Apollo on Steroids" going to test? Cutting-edge CO2 filters? The absolute latest in golf cart technology? In short, what is Bush's moon plan going to accomplish that we couldn't do right here?

Testbed missions don't have to be manned, and they don't have to be round-trip. One-way missions are a lot cheaper because you don't have to waste energy carrying around all that extra fuel for the return trip.

Jeremy
Click to expand...

If only hyperbole were logic...
 
El_Spectre said:
If only hyperbole were logic...
Click to expand...

What hyperbole? If you disagree with my assessment of the exciting new technologies that NASA's plan will test, please feel free to elaborate. Please be sure to specify why these same technologies could not be developed and tested on the ground for a tiny fraction of the price.

And I don't see how you can argue with the fact that one-way missions are an order of magnitude cheaper than manned ones.

Jeremy
 
I don't believe this any more than I believed that we were really going to have a manned mission to Mars.

However, I'm all in favor of it if it were to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom