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.""
But NASA has not yet decided what vehicles will be used to reach the moon...
There's a giant Big Boy statue down the road you can use...
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.
I've also decided to go on a huge roadtrip in 2015, but I too have no idea how I'll get there... Nor do I know what I'm going to do with my current vehicle (a 1975 Honda civic) once it is scheduled to be retired (2010 at the latest). But don't you worry, I'll manage to pull it off somehow... ;)
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Kennedy: "We will go to the moon in this decade..."
NASA today: "We will go to the moon in this decade... at the earliest. Maybe. But hey, don't hold your breath."
For real, how can it possibly take longer to do it again, if we already did it before? The R&D phase is over. We know what to do.
1) Build Saturn V
2) Put spaceship on top
3) MTV Flag
What, did we lose the Saturn blueprint or something?
I've always wondered what kind of political issues could arise from sending people to new territories. After all, who owns the land of other planets? It seems that the moon is politically stable because it's really hard and expensive to actually settle a large portion of the land. It's good to see that these projects to some extent don't push national boundaries all the way into space.
see a Text Widget
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.
USA to China: "Anak...err China, It's over, I've secured the higher ground."
Are you secure enough in your masculinity to run 'man touch'?
They have the only heavy lift vehicles in continuous development and operation that could make this happen. We already use their liquid fuel motors (Boeing and LockMart both licensed Russian motors in their rockets).
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
To paraphrase
We don't know how we're going to get there or do what we want to do once we get there, but by god, we're going.
Great., NASA is run by PHBs.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
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.
"One of these days Alice..."
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
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 month Scientific American ran an editorial about the new space goals. Their basic thrust was to cut the shuttle and space station, leave the science alone, and then you'd still have enough for the moon mission.
I've got mixed feelings about that viewpoint. I can't help but think the real problem is an aging, risk-adverse bureaucracy and fragmented goals. It's easy to argue all day about what is important or not. Personally, I'd like to see cost-to-orbit decreased by new technology. To me that should be the major national goal. Then the rest of these questions (which are really about money) would not be so pressing. But perhaps that is fixing the long-term problem instead of bickering over budgets today. And heck, that's no fun!
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.
1) Put a manufacturing base on the moon.
2) Build solar powered launch catapult.
3) Build space station.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Kennedy had a goal - showing that good old American capitalism could beat Russian communism. That principle was worth hiring on thousands of engineers and accelerating plans that already were in place to be met by the end of the decade. Not to mention throwing billions at the problem.
Nowadays we don't have anything to prove. There's no motivation other than science. We can't reuse the Saturn V. Remember what the Saturn V put on the moon? A little tin foil lander, and a small buggy of a car. Not much effective payload, even if you make them unmanned. We'd have to make something bigger... but again, the question is why? Pursuit of science. Which is noble, but not nearly as impressive as getting the one-up on some communists. So it's gonna take awhile...
-philski-
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)
Personally, I think we ought to develop cheaper means of getting into orbit before we try anything really ambitious in space.
:-)
If the last 30 years have proven anything, it's that space access is a chicken and egg problem. You won't get competition for cheaper vehicles until you have a market for those vehicles. Yet you can't create the market without having cheap space access. The Space Shuttle actually drove UP launch costs instead of realizing the promised launch savings! That's why the Delta and Atlas rockets have been making a comeback.
The key to accessing space is to bootstrap an industry in as inexpensive of a way as you can. Once the industry is bootstraped, uses will emerge and companies will begin competing on technology. At that point, there will be no stopping the space industry.
Just keep in mind that 50 years ago there was a market for only about six computers in the entire world. Look what happened to that market.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
I love the Liberty Ship concept. Unfortunately, there's only one problem: Gas-Core Nuclear Rockets are as of yet unproven. Many engineers have their doubts that they will even work. (Although I think with enough money behind it, the concept can be made to work. ;-)) As a result, the GCNR proposal is a bad idea for early space access. It would be another miracle technology that may or may not pan out. It's a much better idea to wait on the GCNR rockets until a market exists.
In the meantime, we should be able to build some very nice first-gen super-boosters by chaining a few of these babies together into a second stage. Once you have the OOMPH to get the rocket off the ground, you can ditch the first stage and coast a massive amount of cargo to orbit on your afterburning engines (~500 Isp). Once sufficient velocity has been built up, you can drop the afterburning and take the cargo the rest of the way on ~900+ Isp engines.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
John F. Kennedy Address at Rice University in the Space Effort September 12, 1962
President Pitzer, Mr. Vice President, Governor, Congressman Thomas, Senator Wiley, and Congressman Miller, Mr. Webb. Mr. Bell, scientists, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen: I appreciate your president having made me an honorary visiting professor, and I will assure you that my first lecture will be very brief. I am delighted to be here and I'm particularly delighted to be here on this occasion.
We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds. Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this Nation's own scientific manpower is doubling every 12 years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far out-strip our collective comprehension.
No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man's recorded history in a time span of but a half century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about to years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only 5 years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than 2 years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than 2 months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power. Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.
This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward. So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait.
But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward-and so will space.
William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage.
If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space.
Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it-we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag o
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.
Secondly, Mars and the moon are going to be totally different kettles of fish to colonize. Mars has an atmosphere, thin as it is, roughly 24-hour days, and a bloody cold climate. The Moon has no atmosphere whatsoever, four-week days (making it near-impossible to grow anything there), and temperatures that go from bloody cold to bloody boiling. I'm not sure how much we're going to learn about living on Mars from the Moon.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
The land on the moon was unclaimed. He claimed it. I applaud his brilliant thinking. International law allows people to lay claim to any unclaimed, unocupied land. Congrats to his quick thinking. - I have no wit
71.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
That reminds me..
"We explored the Earth looking for women. Even went to the Moon, just to see if there was any woman there. That's why we brought that little car, why would you bring a car, unless there's some chance of going on a date? What the hell are you doing with the car on the god-damn Moon? I never was able to figure that out. You're on the Moon!!! Isn't that far enough?!
There was no more male idea in the history of the Universe, than "Why don't we fly up to the Moon and drive around?". That is the essence of male thinking right there." - Jerry Seinfeld
The moon is a Harsh Mistress
One of the best books I have EVER read. You don't need to know anything else, just get to your library and thank your lucky stars you were let IN on this book.. nuff said.
Smile.
Ahh it raises an interesting possiblility
:) ( 10^7 Tons or more for noticable effects id say)
In Soviet Russia Moon Lands On You!!!!
*chuckles*
Thanks for the good place to plant the joke by the way. Its true that shifing mass from the earth to the moon would shift the Baryocenter of the two bodies closer to the moon, but this also goes back the other way with anything leaving the moon making it lighter shifing the balance towards earths center. But its probably not an issue given the moon is getting about 1cm further away from the earth each year If i remeber the numbers correctly (someone able to back that up?) and it would probably counteract most mass shift between the earth and the moon. Ignoring the fact the mass shift would need to be HUGE before we noticed anyhting at all
XML - A clever joke would be here if
Add to that the outer space treaty and several other treaties that significantly limits any rights to claim land in outer space, and it's quite clear that this guy has no basis in international law at all.
Baldrson writes "Peter Diamandis, originator of the Ansari X-Prize is now claiming private companies may beat NASA back to the Moon: "In the next five to eight years we will have the first private orbital flights occurring. When you're in orbit you are two-thirds of the way to anywhere. I predict that within about three years of private human orbital flights...you'll have the first private teams of people stockpiling fuel on orbit and making a bee-line for the Moon." If Diamandis's math is correct and Bigelow's $50M America's Space Prize is sufficient for orbit, NASA could set up an "Apollo Prize" for a lot less money than they'd spend themselves to return to the moon. Indeed, someone like Paul Allen could afford to endow such a prize if NASA gets too bogged down with funding cycle politics again."
Seastead this.
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?
I agree with one of responses that its the cost to orbit that NASA and/or private companies should research. So, what ever happened to making a railgun, or more conventional catipult like system to fling stuff into space?? I know Arther C. Clark discussed it at some point and without rocket motors the G's needed to accelerate something from Earth's surface would SQUISH a human, but hell, it would work for supplies and raw materials. Cylinders of O2 can withstand 15 Gs. So why can't we fling some shipping containers full of sullpies up and meet them up there? I would love some answers??
Cost. I mean the 1st design of the ISS cost $9 billion and that was the budget to build the thing as well. And the designed was floored, wasn't 0G enough, produced too much micro-gravity. The whole thing was scrapped.
/. a while back not sure Article). Moon dust is also an irratant, eye and skin wise, also more needs to be known about long term exposure to moon dust. So much finer and sharper than anything dust on earth.
So more money and the international community was dragged in. New design drawn up.
The problem with the ISS now is that all the inputting countries know its not really worth it ($$$ wise), but no country wants to be the party pooper.
If anyone has been reading New Scientist recently Synopsisthere was a 4 page article on moon dust and moon base building. The dust can be melted into a glass silicate quite readily, for making roads and landing pads. Low effiency solar panels can be produced by rovers (wasnt that on
Automation - The Car Company Tycoon Game
-
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.See that little blue dot next to my name? I was into nuclear engines long before I ever found slashdot. However, I don't trust NASA to complete what it starts. I've lived near the Cape for too long.
I realize that we both want the same thing, we just disagree on the approach. Most of the NASA issues I've seen go way back to the moment that Nixon effectively shut down the space program. Any and all money was channelled into the Shuttle program, which was subsequently screwed up by Nixon's demands for a "jack of all trades" vehicle. The engineers did an amazing job on the shuttle, and by all rights its technology and power outstrips that of the Saturn V. The problem is the amount of crap hard-bolted to that technology, and the Carter administration's demands to "stretch out" the costs. The result was a half-rate craft that was unable to complete any mission effectively.
Regean tried to build on the existing investment by supporting NASA's plans for Space Station Freedom, a Lunar Transit, and eventually a Lunar Base. He also pushed NASA to complete the National Space Plane to provide for cheap access to space. But between the Shuttle's downtime after Challenger and Clinton's cutbacks to the space program (which resulted in that piece of shit in the sky known as the ISS), all the original goals of Regean's program have been missed.
Now we're scrapping all of our super-fancy technology and doing it the way we know it can be done. I see this as a *good* thing because it's the only way our space program will progress. Remember, NASA's current budget is being sucked dry by flying and maintaining the space shuttle. At $500 million per launch, it's anything but and effective method for getting to space!
The CEV program (even if only Spiral One is completed) will free up NASA's coffers to do more interesting stuff than sending 104 metric tonnes up and down the gravity well. (Yes, the Space Shuttle weighs that much.) We don't have figures yet, but even at $100 million per launch the CEV will be 5 times as cost effective as the shuttle is today. My guess is that realistic launch costs will settle somewhere closer to $50-$75 million per launch. A significant savings.
Unfortunately, it seems like the capital, either political or monetary, to build them isn't easy to find. To me, that says that the designs aren't really that great. Building prototypes is the most important step of R&D - and I was saying that we need to build better engines before spending $umpteen billion in space.
Now slow down a moment here. Quite a few prototypes *have* been built. The NERVA program was considered successful, and was ready to fly prior to the cancellation of pretty much all space programs. The Orion was prototyped in many forms (you've seen the Put-Put video I assume?) but finally died in the cancellation of the Saturn V program. The linear aerospike engines and hyrdrogen slush technologies were key to the X-33. That program was underfunded and undercommitted to by NASA (as was the Delta Clipper). Most of these engines are developed enough to take a risk on, but the only one you're likely to see in the near term is the Nuclear Thermal Rockets. The rest will wait until we again have aerospace companies fighting to create the best hardware. (They were pretty disillusioned after their treatment in the 90's.)
Other engine concepts:
- Nuclear Salt Water Rocket: Must be tested in space due to the radioactivity of the fuel.
- Gas-Core Nuclear Rocket: Research is progressing, but no working prototype yet exists.
- Antimatter catalyzed engines: This is related to the Orion engine, and cannot be used on Earth due to the nuclear test ban treaty. A mission is already planned, however.
- Ion Engines: These are already used.
- Solar Sails: These have been used on a few test missions.
- M2P2 Solar Sails: Under development. Could be useful for a more powerful Orion design.
- Deadalus: Excellent solution for travel beyond our sol
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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
I was the one who came up with this. But due to budget cuts, they had to change "Back to the Future" to "Back to the Moon." Otherwise, it's pretty much as is.
A guy walks into a bar... well, I forgot the joke, but the punchline is that he's an alcoholic.