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.""
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.
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.
And as I mentioned in a reply to that different post, you need something to build with. Once the infrastructure is in place, it's far cheaper to lift raw materials from the moon than it is to lift them from the earth.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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.
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)
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.
The CEV is both a step back and a step forward.
Its an idealogical step back from the shuttle. Becoming more of a "do all disposable" similar to the ever reliable Appolo hardware that was quickly adapted to 3 totaly different sets of missions with little effort. Leaving us without a "Jack of all trades" craft such as the space shuttle, able to do crew and cargo on the one vehicle and function as a remote scientific research platform yet very difficult to change or retrofit for a very different task.
It is a step forward in technology and that is something to be seen as a good thing. It will also bring space travel forward more to the point where vehicles similar to the space shuttle can be effectively used.
The CEV will put us back into interplanetary space and its a good way to do it. But it shouldnt be seen as a replacement for the shuttle. The CEV better fufills the role placed on appolo craft. Long trips, with little need for multi purpose cargo and equipment capability INSIDE the craft. Where as the space shuttle is very good at lifing payloads into orbit with a crew on hand to make sure things go smoothly. Something the CEV will not be as good at.
The CEV shouldnt be replcacing the shuttle To fast. But the CEV will begin to take away from the shuttles "ferry service" duties for the ISS (at least going up, cause hopefuly they keep some docked up there for emergencies like they SHOULD )
XML - A clever joke would be here if
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.