Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Back to Moon in 2015?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i'll-believe-it-when-the-rocks-are-at-the-smithsonian dept.

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.""

5 of 697 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by gclef · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Why? by gclef · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Have a look at
      http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2005/TM-2005-213 610.pdf

      One of the surprises of the Apollo experience was how troublesome the lunar dust turned out to be. It obscured their vision on landing, clogged mechanisms, abraded the Extravehicular Mobility Suits (EMS), scratched the instrument covers, degraded the performance of radiators, compromised seals, irritated their eyes and lungs, and generally coated everything with surprising tenacity. Some of the EMS components were approaching failure at the end of these missions, which ranged from 21 to 75 hr on the lunar surface.


      Also, the dust is far from a constant size, and is far more abrasive than you'll find here on earth, due to a lack of erosion mechanisms on the moon.

  2. Why? by j-cloth · · Score: 4, Insightful
    While I am hugely dissapointed that I'm not currently living on the lunar colony that was promised to me when I was 8, I really don't see the point in this.

    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.

  3. The need for new designs by ichbinderharlekin · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The original moon missions used the venerable Saturn V rocket. The Saturn V was a heavy lifter that is unrivaled even today. The problem is, we don't have any working Saturn V rockets anymore. And I think they threw the plans away during a bit of a spring cleaning. If we intend to get back to the moon within 10 years we have some serious engineering and construction work to get down to. Judging by what we learned on the series of moon missions in the past, NASA will probably have to seriously overengineer everything.

    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)

  4. Re:Great if applied to other things. by bombadillo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.