Slashdot Mirror
Back to Moon in 2015?
Mistress.Erin writes "NASA has announced they may send astronauts back to the moon as early as 2015, and may build an international base once they get there. From TFA:"The next mission to land a man on the moon will take place in 2015 at the earliest, the new chief of the United States' space program said on Monday, adding the mission could be followed by the construction of a multinational space station there. But NASA has not yet decided what vehicles will be used to reach the moon, or what will succeed the aging space shuttle fleet, which is due to be retired in 2010.""
Why the moon? Well, I suppose it's basically in our backyard, and for interstellar toddlers, it's a pretty good goal to start. Today the moon, tomorrow the universe, eh?
But still, is there anything on the moon that we can use/do that would be cool, other than just developing the technology used to get there?
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
CONTRACTORS!
Seriously. I recently returned from a tour in the middle east. Damn near everything is contracted out: food, showers, embarkation/debarkation. With an increasing number of viable "space" start-ups, it isn't hard to imagine that NASA hasn't announced a shuttle replacement because they're waiting for these guys (or gals) to come up with a cheap alternative that they can purchase time on.
You eliminate a large chunk of the paperwork when a sig on the dotted line passes the logistics to someone else.
Though it pains me to ask this (I'd love for us to be doing more space exploration), is building a base there really a good idea? From what I've read, the lunar dust is incredibly hard on mechanical things (gears, seals, etc)...that would make maintenance of any lunar base very difficult, and prohibitively expensive.
For all of that effort (both in the initial build, and in the launch/materials costs for maintenance)...what do we get? Not much, even in terms of science.
I'd love for us to do more space exploration, but honestly, I think a really big station at L4 or L5 would be a much better idea. Locally stable gravitiational point, but not a deep gravity well, far less dust, very low g environment, etc.
It's not as sexy as the moon, but really...L5's the place to be, not the moon.
I advocate developing space travel technology as well as building bases on Mars, but the Moon? really, we went there in the 60's and 70's, saw that there was nothing too worthhile there, and left. I just don't see the point. Maybe someone could explain to me what we could benfit from.
So they've decided they will probably go to the moon 10-15 years from now, may or may not build something there, and have no idea how they're going to get there. Doesn't exactly inspire and encourage like the Kennedy declaration did, does it? It's too bad the public has lost most of its romantic view of space travel. What most people don't realize is that money invested in space exploration usually results in inventions that can be applied here on earth. While I think it's a good thing that Bush is pushing for space exploration, I think NASA needs a PR overhaul to entice more public support, especially in light of the Columbia disaster.
Seriously. Why?
NOTE:"because", "because it's there", "human curiosity/wonder", and other such pie-in-the-sky BS will not wash. Justifying the billions with "hey, look, we ended up with velcro last time" also doesn't cut it. Nor does "lots of people will be employed with those billions". I'm looking for clear, useful results; not pie-in-the-sky philosophical goodies and promises worthy of a campaign speech. It's a goddamn ROCK and I want to know why we should pay a LOT of money to send a bunch of egotistical people there.
I challenge thee, Space Fanboys of Slashdot.
Please help metamoderate.
I think the average person would be more supportive of a moon base (once it was there) compared to the ISS simple because the moon base is located in a physical, identifiable, and visible location. Everyone can see the Moon and think about it and wonder about it. The ISS, on the other hand, is literally in nowhere. Also, the residents seem to be basically stuck in a can. With a Moon base, one can go out for walk and go exploring. I think subconsciously there's a greater appeal to that idea than for that of the ISS.
This whole "To the moon" thing reeks of nothing more than a plan by our good buddy Jr. Bush to:
a) Distract everybody from the fact that his economy is crumbling and he's not doing so well in a very unpopular war, and
b) Develop an excuse to justify the weaponization of space.
Mod me flamebait, but all political discussions are flame wars and this announcement is way more about politics than it is about science.
We currently run a huge deficit. All economists tell you this isn't good for the country.
Our healthcare system is in shambles. It is shameful to hear that Cuba, that has had our economic sanctions for decades, still beats us in some specific medical fields.
Our education system is in disarray. Students are non-achievers these days. We are also un-able to attract bright students from abroad!
Out-sourcing is out of hand. We are exporting our manufacturing base. I hear that if the present rate continues, one-third of our entire defense equipment will be manufactured abroad.
Need I mention immigration? The illeagal immigrants do not pay into any social security system here. When this is going on, you then hear politicians saying that the syetem is nearly broke. Heck, it's nearly broke because not enough people are paying into the system...why?...because a good chunk of people are being payed "under the table".
Let me stop...I could go on and on. But our politicians have got their priorities wrong in my opinion. Do not be supprised to hear the following: "billions disappear at NASA!" or "NASA still dogged by technical problems despite billions"! Let's wait and see.
Going to the moon in the 70's was nothing more than a publicity stunt. Kennedy didn't give a f*ck about science. All he cared about was showing up the russians. Yes we got some science out of it, but not nearly as much as the NASA guys wanted to get. The Apollo program was cut short after we knew the point was brought home to Russia. We had 3 more Saturn V rockets sitting, waiting to be used. All we needed to do was fill 'em up and let 'em rip. But they cancelled the program. R&D >>> support staff for those missions. If they really cared about science they would have flown.
-everphilski-
That fine powdery moon dust turns out to be ridiculously abrasive. The moon happens to lie outside of the major influence of the Earth's magnetic field, so high energy charged particles are a big problem. Considering the setbacks to the shuttle program recently, I wonder if NASA has the budget to start new designs of this sort. Especially considering the fact that we spent enormous amounts of money sending men to the moon Kennedy style.
Even more, mention of setting up a base on the moon brings thoughts of even greater engineering, construction, and financial burdens. Sending a lander and a few go-karts to the moon is far easier than building a habitat that must withstand the dust, temperatures, and high energy particles. The maintenance required to keep things working on the ISS is tough enough, but throw it a quarter of a million miles away from the Earth on a ball of sandpaper and see how long it lasts.
This isn't to say I'm not optimistic. I truly hope that we go to the moon and begin building clusters of human life off of this rock we call home. We have all of our eggs in one basket, and the moon seems a good place to start diversifying. I just think that 2015 may be a bit overly optimistic with current budget restraints. (At least in the 60's we had some competition to try to bankrupt, and even then it took us until Reagan to finish the job)
I'm all for space exploration (of course this really isn't space, and its not really exploration, but anyway) but I think we should set our goals a little closer to home. According to Wikipedia Russia has a 98% literacy rating for people over 15 years old, and I'm sure ours is nowhere close to that. I won't even mention all of the people who are starving. There's a whole soapbox that can be unleashed in this topic of conversation, but I'll keep it, for now, at the literacy part. Personally I'm of the opinion that an education should be one of the top priorities. Now I'm talking about past the basic needs... children can't learn if they die from starvation, obviously, but if you educate the children, you give them an opportunity (not a promise, mind you) to achieve something better in life. Not being able to read or write won't get you very far in this capitalistic society.
And they said zombies weren't real!
Let me get this straight, NASA, along with the other nation-state space agencies who still can't get the International Space Station to work correctly or a regular shuttle service, now going to:
1) Develop a vehicle to get stuff back and forth from the moon, and
2) Put a permanent base on the moon?
Jehoozatz, if they can't do it in Earth orbit, how are they going to do it on the moon?
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
The biggest problem with moon exploration is convincing any reasonable and intelligent person on Earth that the entire project is not just a 'welfare for the rich' program for overspecialized engineers and defense contractors who run out of ideas for killing people who don't shop at the Baby Gap.
We have many major and serious problems on Earth now and are projected to have many more in the not-to-distant future. None of these problems are addressed by anybody's absurd space program.
I realize that this the least-receptive audience in the world for a rational discussion about the need of a Moon program, nevertheless you are all are really just going to have to used to the fact that there aren't that many people left who seriously share your vision of space exploration.
The Moon has been right above us for billions of years, and it will be there for billions of more years. It won't make any difference if we address more serious problems first and go back to the Moon in a hundred years or so from now. Nothing there is going to change.
This is not a troll; it's a serious challenge to the entire mind-set that there are valid reasons to spend billions of dollars on a Moon exploration program.
It's amazing what technology has and has not advanced since the late 60's. Computers are orders of magnitude faster, but we don't have flying cars.
What it comes down to is that propultion technology has not really advanced that far. Sure, it's more efficient and fine-tuned, but it's not revolutionarily different. I mean, if all you have is chemicals, all you can do is tinker with what chemicals you use. The only revolutionary change will occur when we develop propultion technology that doesn't use chemicals.
Yeah.. um.. anyone remember the HUBBLE? Personally, I think it's kinda neat and it should be fully serviced instead of all of this arm waving that the Whitehouse, along with its associates have been doing. Real scientific endeavours have been made with the Hubble, but it's all going to go to waste and its replacement is in jeopardy. I don't understand how one can push for a return to the moon, which has been well studied, when there is a lot of science that needs a healthy Hubble or its replacement (JWST.. and we'll see if that gets canned too.)
We really do need to get our collective asses spread out to several planets at the least and preferably several solar systems.
One nice meteor and splat we're toast... or someone with to touchy a trigger finger.
The more we're spread out the safer we'll be.
Shadus
The point I'm trying to make is that whipping up a design that passes all the relevent federal and NASA checks and balances for approval and human safety (don't you think our safety requirements are just a liiiiitle stricter now than they were in 1960?) and stays within NASA's budget isn't going to take a few weeks, it's going to take months, and probably years. We cannot just re-engineer that old hardware, it won't meet our needs or serve the ultimate purpose of a return trip to the moon. The "equivilent" design is unlikely to show up for years, especially since it has to take into account other projects like the space station and a replacement vehicle for the shuttle. This isn't a single-purpose critter we're throwing together.
Even if we COULD just re-engineer those old machines, we'd have to go back through all the old contractors, have them dig up designs, and then re-start assembly facilities. Getting a machine facility up and running can take a long time by itself. I get your point and his but you're not getting mine: there's more to this than just repeating a stunt we've already done. It's been how many years since the Byzantine Empire faded into the annals of history and we still aren't sure how to reproduce Greek Fire? A bad example, I know, since the formula was a secret, but it's not as simple as you guys make it out to be to re-start production on designs that were engineered 40-50 years ago. It's not CHEAP either, you're basically starting from scratch, even if you're just building the same thing all over again, because none of the production facilities are in place at any of the contrators who built this stuff, and you'll have to pay them all over again to setup those facilities and get engineering teams together to modernize the parts and add safety features that will undoubtedly alter the design. It really is probably cheaper to start from scratch.
I don't speak for everyone regarding the flak NASA gets, but If they're like me ...
I have to say this every day on Slashdot: don't assume everybody is like you. They're not. Thank god. Regardless, I am one of the people that shares your dim view of the shuttle program. I think the science conducted on it has been very valuable, but it's basically a really expensive zero-G research platform. The scientific benefits of the space station are even more dubious.
Regardless, that has nothing to do with my opinion for why it's not a trivial matter to just repeat what we did in the 1960's. The Apollo program was cancelled early due to its expense, statistical danger (it was believed that, if all planned Apollo missions were carried out, we'd lose at least one crew; this belief became a conviction after Apollo 13), and questionable scientific merit. The point had been made: the Stars and Stripes are on the moon; the Hammer and Sickle are not. There was no reason to keep going, given the cost, danger, and fact that the mission was accomplished.
We're going back for an entirely different purpose, and we need different vehicles and technologies to accomplish that purpose.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
The Russians already sent up the "big pieces" in expendable boosters (similar to the Saturn V). The Shuttle was incapable of lifting some primary components, such as the Zvezda service module (delivered by Proton rocket), and of course, people and supplies (Progress and Soyuz).
The Shuttle is a clever system, and it still has uses, but we put too many eggs in that basket. We should have been developing every possible alternative. Instead, we find ourselves indebted to the Russians for our continued presence in space.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
We did last November. The majority of the population seems to agree with me. As you've chosen to degrade the conversation to name-calling, that's the last I have to say on the matter.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
You forgot to add that you will fund the roadtrip with the spare change you manage to find.
This will never hapen in 10 years time with the current funding and emphasize placed on the space program. NASA simply won't get the money needed to get to the moon. It's only ment as a distraction from Iraq and to give the country something to rally behind. This way the conservative media can have talking points about what a visionary president we have. Bush seems really pre-occupied with creating a legacy. Taking on Social Security, The largest nation building exercise since WWII (Iraq), Return to the moon, Star Wars... So far his legacy isn't looking very good. Unfortunately , we will be the ones paying for his poorly managed projects.
What ever you do don't concentrate on Iraq.
-
The Shuttle is scheduled to be retired after 2010, or after the next crash, whichever comes first.
-
NASA doesn't even have a design ready to replace the shuttle.
-
NASA's last three heavy-lifter projects all failed.
-
It took 11 years, from 1970 to 1981, to build and fly the Shuttle.
So there's going to be a period after 2010 during which the US won't have a heavy launch capability. Probably a long period."why not put it on a national referendum, and see what the people think?"
That outcome would be a disaster like California's propositions. It may pass, and we would have no way to pay for it.
You are aware that key provisions to Canada's socialist medicine were struck down last week, right? Not even their courts agree that forced socialism is aligned with their constitution. Also, the general consensus is that the only reason their wait times for care are weeks is because people with serious problems and money come to the US for care! If they didn't do that, the wait time would be months... years... who knows.
That was one of the original motivations for the ISS. (to server as a refueling station/staging point). In fact, it's pretty much the only reason we signed up to build it. Buti t's quickly become a moot point because the ISS has been scaled back so many times due to budget cuts that the 2 crewmen there have to spend their entire efforts focused on not dying. I'm afraid the ISS is all show and no substance, they had to cut out any potential for innovative science when they were cutting it's budget. And yet it continues to drain valuable $$ that NASA could really use right now.
So, we're going to go to Mars on a timetable that completely eliminates any accountability for him, while spending tremendous amounts of money on this, but we can't give NASA the funding to keep the Hubble, which will hold the title of greatest astronomical instrument ever for at least another ten years, from burning up on reentry?
Yeah, he's real dedicated to space. Mars/Moon is a boondogle designed to make Bush look like Kennedy. He wants to be a visionary without the annoying aspect of actually implementing said vision getting in his way like it did with his World of Democracy vision.
If any of the headlines you said were actually true, and not cynical half-hearted attempts to look like he's doing what you said, I'd applaud them. Instead, his energy plan consists of drilling in the ANWR and building more coal plants.
I'm willing to give credit where it is due. I hate Clinton, but I was pretty pleased when he relaxed cryptography export restrictions, just as an example So, out of curiosity, what exactly should I be giving Bush credit for?
The enemies of Democracy are