New Manned Mission To the Moon in 2015

wdlove said:
Would envision a joint mission wit other countries as with have with the International Space Station. When it comes to mining on the moon it also could be private industry.
Click to expand...

That's pretty optimistic... I am betting on Moon War 2030 :)

P.S. Check out the song "Sleeping Satellite" by Tasmin Archer. A rock song about space exploration, how cool...
 
Why go to the moon? It's a big chunk of rock way out in the middle of nowhere with virtually no resources that we could ever get off it profitably. Why not wait until the national debt is down to a more manageable 11 or 12 digits to go on space adventures. Since space is basically 99.99999999999% empty void anyway, consider it 99.99999999999% explored. If pictures are what you want, then telescopes are cheaper, and if those still aren't good enough, then I would personally like to pitch in to put YOU on a one-way trip on a rocket out of the solar system so that you can see space for yourself.

Speaking on behalf of approximately 40 million Americans, we would rather have health insurance like in every other civilized Western society.
 
alex_ant said:
Speaking on behalf of approximately 40 million Americans, we would rather have health insurance like in every other civilized Western society.
Click to expand...

You have health insurance. You just have to pay for it. We Canadians are complaining about getting health insurance, not not getting it. :rolleyes:

At any rate, I am a romantic, and if someone offered me a trip to Mars right now, I'd go without a second thought, but I can understand the reluctance to spend a lot of money on it when money's needed at home. I just wish we/the USA wouldn't spend it on war. :(

On a related note, they're finally launching shuttles again (launch window's July 13 - 31), and their cheesy flash introduction stars Scott Bakula of all people. You'd think they wouldn't want to compare themselves to a show that didn't last, but there you go.
 
Thanatoast said:
I'd prefer Burt Rutan, or another of the multi-billionaire space investors. The highly-subsidized and incredibly expensive Boeing and Lockheed have lost my trust. Isn't Lockheed building the F-22? Don't they charge tens of millions of dollars per plane!? And that's just a freakin' plane, much less a moon lander. I don't want them anywhere near the new space vehicles.
Click to expand...

You know how much tech and material that is in the freaking Raptor? You know it costs more to build one Shuttle and probably getting it ready to fly again then one Raptor?
 
Thanatoast said:
I'd prefer Burt Rutan, or another of the multi-billionaire space investors. The highly-subsidized and incredibly expensive Boeing and Lockheed have lost my trust. Isn't Lockheed building the F-22? Don't they charge tens of millions of dollars per plane!? And that's just a freakin' plane, much less a moon lander. I don't want them anywhere near the new space vehicles.
I don't see the problem here. Strap a booster onto it and let it fly.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Raptor costs around $257 million per aircraft, technically making it the most expensive military aircraft next to the B-2A Spirit.

But the F-22 program's research directly benefitted the even larger F-35 JSF program (and probably every military aviation program in the world for decades), as well as adding valuable data to NASA's research - so it isn't quite fair to say they spent 70+billion just to build a few hundred (of the world's very best) fighters. Time will tell if the F-22 was necessary, though my personal opinion is yes.

More on-topic: The voyage to the moon should really be a dress rehearsal for a Mars mission. But to be honest I'm not sure it's appropriate to pursue this level of exploration right now - it's very likely that the next administration will postpone or cancel it (not trying to talk politics - but when one administration leaves the new one often has different priorities).
 
Lord Blackadder said:
More on-topic: The voyage to the moon should really be a dress rehearsal for a Mars mission. But to be honest I'm not sure it's appropriate to pursue this level of exploration right now - it's very likely that the next administration will postpone or cancel it (not trying to talk politics - but when one administration leaves the new one often has different priorities).
Click to expand...
I don't think it was a priority for *this* administration. Just a gimmick. Now if someone can come along and make something of the investment, I'm all for it, but you know this mission was actually in pursuit of publicity, not any science or exploration.
 
I love science and space (astronomy is one of my hobbies), but I can't see any overpowering need for such space missions in the near future. There are way too many things to be done on Earth, before we start dabbling in space. And for those who think we'll colonize some planet, and it'll be some utopian society: it won't. It will only be a reflection of whatever country gets there first, be it China, Russia or the US. Going somewhere else is not going to solve this planet's problems. Stem Cell research has done way more for us in the few years we've really worked with it than all the shuttle missions.

I think NASA should be working on alternative engines/fuel sources. That way, when we're ready for space exploration, we'll be able to do it much quicker and cheaper.

Besides, I think this whole thing is just a ploy to get Americans looking the other way while Washington slips us some roofies and financially rapes us.

"NASA could always tell Dubya that there are weapons of mass destruction on the moon. That would get us there in no time. And then we would never leave. Fox News would provide round the clock coverage." - anonymous161

Priceless!
 
Toreador93 said:
I love science and space (astronomy is one of my hobbies), but I can't see any overpowering need for such space missions in the near future. There are way too many things to be done on Earth, before we start dabbling in space. And for those who think we'll colonize some planet, and it'll be some utopian society: it won't. It will only be a reflection of whatever country gets there first, be it China, Russia or the US. Going somewhere else is not going to solve this planet's problems. Stem Cell research has done way more for us in the few years we've really worked with it than all the shuttle missions.
Click to expand...

Lot of good things here. You're right about it not being a Utopia because Utopias don't exist in a can and that's where anybody that goes to Mars will essentially be living in, regardless of the politics involved. Say goodbye to blue skies, fresh air, babbling brooks, chirping birds and children's laughter (unless you're drinking from the sci-fi cup). We could send 100 robotic probes to 100 different locations with dozens of different experiments and tests on each one for less money than this crazy political pipe dream is going to cost (if you think it's going to happen– I don't). What's unfortunate is that a lot of real science funding is going to be diverted to a project that will be killed once Bush gets out of office.
 
Thats the political problem isnt it, say all the republicans get booted for their poor govt performance and in come the democrats with a Fiscal guy who isnt a spend thrift as George is. Now what? Though iam for space exploration using big gigantic chemicals 40 years later is anti climatic to say the least. We are still floundering around with the same tech from 40 years ago??? 100 billion? still something is better then nothing which is what we have at the moment. Popping a capsule on top of a allready built solid booster though shouldnt take 10 years??????Shuttle will be dragging us down for years.
 
Nice animation - but there doesn't seem to be anything special about the *reason* we're going back. All they're doing is redesigning Apollo - its quite a huge waste of money. Send a bunch of ships to the moon to provide a habitat for the astronauts so they're actually there more than a week. In a decade we should be able to make permanent facilities on the moon and just use the ships to carry people and equipment back and forth....

Bleh,

D
 
I don't understand why people describe similarities to Apollo as generally bad - Just because the Apollo program ended 30 years ago doesn't mean that everything they did is obsolete by todays standards, and it certainly doesn't mean that we need to re-invent the wheel the next time we do some interplanetary exploration.

There are many engineering problems that NASA solved with Apollo that are just as well solved today with the same basic methods.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
I don't understand why people describe similarities to Apollo as generally bad - Just because the Apollo program ended 30 years ago doesn't mean that everything they did is obsolete by todays standards, and it certainly doesn't mean that we need to re-invent the wheel the next time we do some interplanetary exploration.

There are many engineering problems that NASA solved with Apollo that are just as well solved today with the same basic methods.
Click to expand...

Perhaps because these methods will get us back to the moon, but address none of the concerns with getting to Mars.

Because we lack the rocket power of the Saturn V, we have to use 2! separate rockets to do the job. This has the look of a "strapped together with parts from the junk-drawer" job. It'll work, but it will get us no further to Mars than we were 36 years ago.
 
jayscheuerle said:
Perhaps because these methods will get us back to the moon, but address none of the concerns with getting to Mars.

Because we lack the rocket power of the Saturn V, we have to use 2! separate rockets to do the job. This has the look of a "strapped together with parts from the junk-drawer" job. It'll work, but it will get us no further to Mars than we were 36 years ago.
Click to expand...

I won't pretend to be privy to all the tech that's being planned at NASA, but the Saturn V was a cost-no-option heavy lift rocket that carried heavy payloads into orbit - it didn't have anything to do with actually travelling from orbit to the moon, which was the job of the CSM. The concept of a disposable, modular, capsule/lander arrangement is still a sound one, due to it's weight economy. A Mars mission would almost certainly be done the same way.

The main problem with Mars is that we need a rocket we didn't have during Apollo. The Saturn V can easily be replaced with an equivalent machine today to get us off earth, but a rocket that can take a spacecraft from low earth orbit to Mars and back has never existed, and even today is at the limit of (though not past) what is possible.
 
Quick Google reveals we can thank NASA research in part for some thermal insulating materials, cleaner-burning jet engines, tap water purifiers... New missions will undoubtedly lead to advances in solar and fuel-cell power if nothing else...

Plus, as "rational" as it is to instead throw all those additional billions of dollars at social problems (and we are well on our way to solving those with the money so far spent, right?), people discount the immeasurable "halo effect" that a manned space program to say, Mars, would have on today's children and their interest in science. (Look at the effect of the rovers.)

I say we need a self-sustaining colony somewhere other than here, in case of big space rock, remote-but-still-possible nuclear armageddon, or other cataclysmic event.

BTW, how much colonization or mining (mass addition or removal) can the moon stand before the orbit changes (more than it is)?
 
2jaded2care said:
Quick Google reveals we can thank NASA research in part for some thermal insulating materials, cleaner-burning jet engines, tap water purifiers... New missions will undoubtedly lead to advances in solar and fuel-cell power if nothing else...

Plus, as "rational" as it is to instead throw all those additional billions of dollars at social problems (and we are well on our way to solving those with the money so far spent, right?), people discount the immeasurable "halo effect" that a manned space program to say, Mars, would have on today's children and their interest in science. (Look at the effect of the rovers.)
Click to expand...

I agree that we have almost a duty to pursue space travel, it is not so much a luxury as one of the prime developers of technology, the advancement of science, and the promoter of a stable society that has the wherewithal to reach out into space.

2jaded2care said:
I say we need a self-sustaining colony somewhere other than here, in case of big space rock, remote-but-still-possible nuclear armageddon, or other cataclysmic event.

BTW, how much colonization or mining (mass addition or removal) can the moon stand before the orbit changes (more than it is)?
Click to expand...

Colonies and mining are still a couple lifetimes away at best. Exploration is a much more realistic goal, especially since it is much more technologically feasable and has far fewer political/moral implications.
 
Apollo-on-steroids isn't what we need. Sure it was great the first time around, but remember they pulled the plug when it became too routine and the money got used elsewhere.

A temporary trip to the moon is all Apollo and doesn't really do enough to make it worth the money they're going to spend. I haven't read what's supposed to happen after the return to the moon - but if they continue, they'll need to make a more permanent structure there and people have been working on this for quite some time now.

This new plan just seems like reliving the glory days of Apollo and not worrying about what happens afterwards.

D
 
2jaded2care said:
Quick Google reveals we can thank NASA research in part for some thermal insulating materials, cleaner-burning jet engines, tap water purifiers... New missions will undoubtedly lead to advances in solar and fuel-cell power if nothing else...

Plus, as "rational" as it is to instead throw all those additional billions of dollars at social problems (and we are well on our way to solving those with the money so far spent, right?), people discount the immeasurable "halo effect" that a manned space program to say, Mars, would have on today's children and their interest in science. (Look at the effect of the rovers.)

I say we need a self-sustaining colony somewhere other than here, in case of big space rock, remote-but-still-possible nuclear armageddon, or other cataclysmic event.

BTW, how much colonization or mining (mass addition or removal) can the moon stand before the orbit changes (more than it is)?
Click to expand...

And that is why it is worth it IMO. Thats why I wish they built a little more from the ground up. Oh well at least we are going back into to space.
 
First things first and a cheap easy way to low orbit should be #1. Throwing a capsule on top of a solid booster just shouldnt take years and years. The booster is built, the 2nd stage rocketmotor is made, all they have to make is a freaking capsule and that shouldnt take years and years. Please! If they are looking at 5 years down the road just to throw a capusel on a shuttle solid rocket motor then perhaps we should just hire tSpace. I want to know mr Griffin why it takes 5 years?

Then there is the Lunar gig and its going to take Nasa till the year 2018 to get there???? we did it in the 60s in 9 years but today in the year 2005 it takes 13 years??? And that is using 75% of the current shuttle system with parts on the shelf????? Then the cost of 104 billion and we all know this is Nasa and all those Shuttle componets have cost the Tax payers 1,000 times what it they said they would cost, my guess is more like 150-200 billion when said and done. Nasa way of doing business doesnt inspire confidence and their track record with building spaceships sucks. My lil 2cent rant
 
2jaded2care said:
I say we need a self-sustaining colony somewhere other than here, in case of big space rock, remote-but-still-possible nuclear armageddon, or other cataclysmic event.

BTW, how much colonization or mining (mass addition or removal) can the moon stand before the orbit changes (more than it is)?
Click to expand...

and then we can go a-exploring!
b12.jpg
 
alex_ant said:
Why go to the moon?

Speaking on behalf of approximately 40 million Americans, we would rather have health insurance like in every other civilized Western society.
Click to expand...
No, that would make us all lazy and ruin the economy. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top