New Manned Mission To the Moon in 2015

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Nov 1, 2001
22,407
0
VA
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/06/14/moon.mission.reut/index.html

I have to think that we'll be lucky to get back there that soon - with no vehicle capable of getting us there and the ISS a mess and the shuttle not doing so well either.

Although, having such lofty goals might be enough to get the thing done. But it would require getting all the pieces together. Replace the shuttle, create a viable space station that can be the launching point for the rest of the solar system, not only for manned missions but for probes as well. So effectively you'd make a orbiting space port in higher earth orbit than the current ISS.

All this won't be done by 2015, I imagine. And if not the logistics and money required to get to the moon becomes even greater. Even though the Apollo program was a huge success, it wasn't practical. To create a permanent manned colony on the moon will require smaller steps and better systems - unfortunately, none of these seem to be in the works for NASA....

D
 

WinterMute

Moderator emeritus
Jan 19, 2003
4,715
4
London, England
What do you mean "new" mission, we've never been there before.... ;) ;) :D

2015 is a bit of a stretch, but 10 years is still a long time if you start throwing big bucks at a problem, I think it's tight but doable.

I have to say, I'd rather see a shot at Mars or maybe Venus on a longer timeframe, but in lieu I guess Luna isn't so bad. it's a plan at least.
 

Brother Michael

macrumors 6502a
Apr 14, 2004
717
0
About time.

Personally, I beleive that the only reason why we haven't done much with space exploration and development is because we haven't had a lot of competition.

In all actuality that was probably something that was very good about the Cold War, it was the US vs. the SU. There was a challenge, a race, etc.

Really we need to either have private companies start fighting each other to make terrific effecient space crafts, or we need to race against another country.

Mike

BTW: Aren't there private companies working on space craft?
 

Daveway

macrumors 68040
Jul 10, 2004
3,375
0
New Orleans / Lafayette, La
I think this is because of pressure from China/Japan that plan on going to the moon also.
I thought we were done with moon missions and there was nothing there that we don't already know about.

I say go for Mars.
 
I'd rather spend the money on a robotic probe to Europa with a nuclear powered ice melting/digging probe and lots of life detection aboard. The spirit of human exploration is noble enough, but there's really nowhere for us to go and no reason other than ego to make the trips to the Moon (again) and to Mars. Money spent on robotic probes will have a much higher return scientifically, but not emotionally.
 

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Nov 1, 2001
22,407
0
VA
WinterMute said:
What do you mean "new" mission, we've never been there before.... ;) ;) :D

2015 is a bit of a stretch, but 10 years is still a long time if you start throwing big bucks at a problem, I think it's tight but doable.

Oh, I don't think its impossible - its just that we really need to set up the infrastructure and not make it a return to the Apollo days. Do it right so that its cheaper in the long run in terms of time and money....

And I'm all for it, I just hope to see it happen.

D
 
WinterMute said:
What do you mean "new" mission, we've never been there before.... ;) ;) :D

2015 is a bit of a stretch, but 10 years is still a long time if you start throwing big bucks at a problem, I think it's tight but doable.

I have to say, I'd rather see a shot at Mars or maybe Venus on a longer timeframe, but in lieu I guess Luna isn't so bad. it's a plan at least.
Venus?

Go ahead. Don't forget to bring some lead to put in your swimming pool (it will melt there).

You'd have a hard time envisioning a less hospitable place to be than Venus!
 

WinterMute

Moderator emeritus
Jan 19, 2003
4,715
4
London, England
jayscheuerle said:
Venus?

Go ahead. Don't forget to bring some lead to put in your swimming pool (it will melt there).

You'd have a hard time envisioning a less hospitable place to be than Venus!
Venus wobbles slightly in it's orbit, there's a temperate zone around the poles apparently...

Land on the dark side and carry a big sun-parasol, what's the problem? Insulating heat isn't much more difficult than insulating cold, unless the tiles fall off obviously. :eek:

Venus is a fascinating planet, and you can get to the surface without getting crushed flat too, which is a bonus in my book.
 
WinterMute said:
Venus wobbles slightly in it's orbit, there's a temperate zone around the poles apparently...

Land on the dark side and carry a big sun-parasol, what's the problem? Insulating heat isn't much more difficult than insulating cold, unless the tiles fall off obviously. :eek:

Venus is a fascinating planet, and you can get to the surface without getting crushed flat too, which is a bonus in my book.
Hah!

Conditions on Venus make exploring the planet extremely difficult. Thick white clouds completely block the view of its surface. Corrosive sulfuric acid clouds eat away at any spacecraft that passes through its carbon dioxide atmosphere, and extremely high temperatures (450 degrees Celsius, or 900 degrees Fahrenheit) and an incredibly dense atmosphere greet any visitor to its surface.

The average atmospheric pressure on the surface of Venus is a crushing 2/3 of a ton per square inch. For comparison, the average atmospheric pressure on Earth (calculated at sea level) is equal to 14.7 pounds per square inch.

I'll stay here, thank you!
 

WinterMute

Moderator emeritus
Jan 19, 2003
4,715
4
London, England
jayscheuerle said:
Hah!

Conditions on Venus make exploring the planet extremely difficult. Thick white clouds completely block the view of its surface. Corrosive sulfuric acid clouds eat away at any spacecraft that passes through its carbon dioxide atmosphere, and extremely high temperatures (450 degrees Celsius, or 900 degrees Fahrenheit) and an incredibly dense atmosphere greet any visitor to its surface.

The average atmospheric pressure on the surface of Venus is a crushing 2/3 of a ton per square inch. For comparison, the average atmospheric pressure on Earth (calculated at sea level) is equal to 14.7 pounds per square inch.

I'll stay here, thank you!
Well, it's no place for a Sunday-school picnic I'll grant you, but we've been to the moon, it's a dead chunk of rock with an orbiting golf-ball and some footprints, people said it couldn't be done (some say it wasn't). We build subs that'll take those kinds of pressures.

C'mon, lets go to Venus, it'll be a laugh, think of the polaroids you could take ;)

Seriously, it would be a challenge, but I think we lack for those these days, whenever there's a compelling reason not to do something, someone usually ends up doing it. Larry Niven hypothesised metal and mineral mining on Venus many years ago, pre-smelted lakes of liquid lead and sulfer, heat annealed alloys, purple skinned Venusian princesses (bugger, there I go again...).

crapfreakboy said:
Feed the hungry first I say.
Don't worry, Sir Bob's on it...
 

Eric5h5

macrumors 68020
Dec 9, 2004
2,406
357
crap freakboy said:
Feed the hungry first I say.
Let's kill two birds with one stone, and send the hungry to the moon. There, now everyone's happy!

--Eric
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
Im just glad as heck Bush replaced Okeefe with a scientist like Griffin. He will be good for Nasa but my god he has a lot of work to do. How do you pry all that paperwork out of all those beuracrats hands.?Its all they know. That will be his toughest job. Once those are booted perhaps that can go back to doing science and Space travel.
We do it on the Moon we can do it anywhere so this is good. Then the next step is to replace Cheesy chemical rockets with a nice robust Nuclear powered craft then we can go exploring the Final Frontier. Griffin make it so.
 

Thanatoast

macrumors 65816
Dec 3, 2002
1,005
134
Denver
Why not send a shuttle to the moon, with an old Apollo space capsule in the cargo area? Since Nasa's decided it's too dangerous to land the darn things, let's make them shuttles, literally, to the moon. If they want to build a new space capsule, let's see: (computing power circa 1969 x engineering design circa 1969) / (moore's law + modern materials/design * 35 years) = $3.17

Seriously though, why not? The shuttle's good for long term missions, right? And if we could build a capsule in 1969, practically a bathyscope with a TI-86 attached, certainly we could do it today.
 

emw

macrumors G4
Aug 2, 2004
11,177
0
This is interesting news, though I wonder if it's too ambitious. We did it with Apollo in a fairly similar timeframe, but those missions were pretty limited. Planting a permanent station up there that we could staff for long periods of time is much more difficult than the Apollo missions. We'd need to design a completely new set of spacecraft to make repeatable trips to the moon, likely from the ISS, which isn't ready to support that kind of thing yet, I don't think.

It will be interesting to see where we are with this in 5 or 10 years.
 

Dont Hurt Me

macrumors 603
Dec 21, 2002
6,056
6
Yahooville S.C.
Thanatoast said:
Why not send a shuttle to the moon, with an old Apollo space capsule in the cargo area? Since Nasa's decided it's too dangerous to land the darn things, let's make them shuttles, literally, to the moon. If they want to build a new space capsule, let's see: (computing power circa 1969 x engineering design circa 1969) / (moore's law + modern materials/design * 35 years) = $3.17

Seriously though, why not? The shuttle's good for long term missions, right? And if we could build a capsule in 1969, practically a bathyscope with a TI-86 attached, certainly we could do it today.
Shuttle is 60s & 70s Tech thats a P.O.S. Thats killed a lot of folks, dont get me started on Shuttle. Griffen is on it. He knows we need a good earth to low orbit vehicle, we then need a pure space vehicle and we then need a lander of some type. I like tSpace's idea which is more of Spaceship one only bigger if you will. Its a very safe way to move man off the planet vs sitting on top of a chemical rocket filled with explosives and hoping it dont go boom when you light it off. I think those Landers from Space 1999 were cool and practical :D Nasa should do something like those :) Then we would have a place to drop all of that Nuclear Fuel from Iran.
 
Thanatoast said:
Why not send a shuttle to the moon, with an old Apollo space capsule in the cargo area? Since Nasa's decided it's too dangerous to land the darn things, let's make them shuttles, literally, to the moon. If they want to build a new space capsule, let's see: (computing power circa 1969 x engineering design circa 1969) / (moore's law + modern materials/design * 35 years) = $3.17

Seriously though, why not? The shuttle's good for long term missions, right? And if we could build a capsule in 1969, practically a bathyscope with a TI-86 attached, certainly we could do it today.
The shuttle orbits at about 200-240 miles from the surface of the Earth. The moon is around 1000 times as far away (230,000 miles)... Of course, if Jerry Bruckheimer can use a modified Space Shuttle to land on an asteroid in Armageddon...
 

wdlove

macrumors P6
Oct 20, 2002
16,570
0
I happy that the plan is still on track. Sounds as though we should know more by the end of summer. With five years left in the shuttle and all the problems, it might be smart to just cancel the project now. Why waste anymore money on an obsolete and troublesome spacecraft.

Lets move on to the CEV. We have Boeing and Lockheed working on the project now for the contract to build the new spacecraft.