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.""
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?
But still, is there anything on the moon that we can use/do that would be cool
The coolest thing would be that everyone can do the moonwalk. Awesome!
Free XBox, PS2
"Today the moon, tomorrow the universe"
Or
Today the Moon, 45 years from now the Moon again...
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.
Hmmm... you got me thinking of the perfect person would could send to the moon
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.
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!
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.
If they are talking about working on a permanent base, why wouldn't you want to start with the moon? Any sort of extra-terrestrial base, be it a space station, moon base or planetary colony - is going to require a lot of supplies from Earth on a regular basis. The proximity to Earth is a big plus here.
If things go well and a Luna base becomes well established, it becomes a much easier launching pad to form other bases/colonies elsewhere. The gravity well on the moon makes regular launches much less cost prohibitive.
My UID is the product of 2 primes.
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.
Why the moon?
Babysteps. Since the 1960s we've lost the capability to send anything large on an interplanetary cruise. In fact, we shelved most of the technologies that would allow us to perform such cruises quickly and efficiently. As a result, we need to rebuild our space infrastrucutre. Part of that rebuilding is an inexpensive method for getting to and from the moon. CEV Spiral two will most likely use nuclear engines for moving passengers to and from the moon. As we gain real world experience with those engines, we can begin contemplating the task of sending a manned mission to Mars.
The key thing to remember about the current CEV program is that it's built on real technology we have today. This is a big change for NASA which has always expected some sort of miracle technology for their next vehicle. The bright side of this change is that we'll have the CEV completed in a relatively short period of time, and it will cost a reasonable amount compared to the $$$ that went into the Shuttle program.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If the moon was developed as a jumping off point for Earth, exploration of the system would be much much cheaper than it is today (especially for the outer planets). That is because the Moon could build all of the space hardware and refine the fuel so we would not have to lift that mass out of the Earth's gravitational well. Plus, the Moon would be a much better location to train astronauts (lower gravity and easier access to no grav conditions). And, it would be a much cheaper source of some very expensive stuff on Earth, such as helium 3.
It is a shame that we've waited this long to even consider it.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
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
There is a saying, get to low earth orbit and you are halfway to ANYWHERE in the galaxy. It's true. The velocity requirement (delta-v) to hit low earth orbit is about 7.6 km/sec. It's actually a little more than that when you consider you are fighting gravity the whole way up, and drag, but once you are in low earth orbit you are going 7.6 km/sec. Escape velocity from earth is about 13 km/sec. At 13 km/sec you can point your rocket any sane direction and just coast to where you want to go.
... to escape. Slightly more delta-V than from LEO, you lose a little by landing on a moon, you now have to fight it's gravity well, but you gain something - solid ground. It's nice to be able to have a lab to work in. To be able to stand. That's one potential line of thinking for a moon base. And it's a valid one. There's also moon resources. Silicon, metals. Tons of oxygen in the regolith (moon rocks). If we can figure out how to get it out. There's actually a contest sponsored by NASA with a cash prize to do exactly that.
Building a base on the moon is similar to that. It takes a little more delta-V to get to the moon. Don't have my notes in front of me, think its on the order of 11km/sec. But leaving the moon is only like 2-3 km/sec
My opinion? Rendezvous in LEO and shoot from there. Screw the moon. But that's just me. I like the brute force method.
-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.
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 was under the impression that the reason we don't currently have nuclear outfitted space technology (not counting decay powered satelites i.e voyager) was that if the Challenger/Columbia thing happens again it sprays the planet with refined nuclear material.
Aside from that how exactly would you use a technology that doesn't rely on combustion to produce the needed thrust to enter orbit.
Not saying that it couldn't be done but it seems like it would still be easier to burn something to get into orbit. Once you're clear of the atmosphere you either need to expel a gas (combustion rocket for speed or pressurised gas for fine orientation) or you rely on impact (solar sails). If you had a nuclear powered vehicle you would have plenty of power but I can't think of any way to direct it. Unless you could derive thrust from a neutron stream?
If anyone knows of a way to get thrust from fission I'd love to hear it.
No! You need to take one of those cement mixers, and build it out of that. You can then travel to the moon to bring back all the junk left there, and recycle it.
Hmmm. Sounds like a good idea for a TV program...
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
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
I was under the impression that the reason we don't currently have nuclear outfitted space technology (not counting decay powered satelites i.e voyager) was that if the Challenger/Columbia thing happens again it sprays the planet with refined nuclear material.
That impression is quite wrong. Nuclear technology has not been used because:
1. It hasn't met the mission profiles. (It was even considered for the Shuttle upper stages.)
2. People are afraid of nuclear.
In the case of CEV Spiral Two, the engines would be used for pure orbital work, so there would be little to no concern of any materials reaching Earth.
If anyone knows of a way to get thrust from fission I'd love to hear it.
Man, I thought I'd gotten everyone around here trained in how Nuclear Thermal Rockets work. Here's the short of it:
Most nuclear reactors derive their power production from the thermal aspect of the reaction. As the core heats up, the heat is pumped into a generator where a turbine is turned. During the push to reach the moon, some enterprising engineers figured that if you could heat a propellant using a nuclear reactor, you could dump as much thermal energy into a working fluid as the materials could withstand. The result is that massive amounts of thrust can be obtained by simply heating a stream of hydrogen, oxygen, or even plain old air. (See: Project Pluto; rather nasty weapon that was.) Since hydrogen and oxygen can't become radioactive, there would be little issue of spreading nuclear materials. Unfortunately, there was a Graphite Ablation problem from the heat, but the modern TRITON engine fixes that by utilizing Tungsten cladding.
Does that answer your question?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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?
the Earth is more likely to be hit, but the Earth has a dense atmosphere that burns up most of what hits it and therefore offers protection... the moon has no such protection... even a small rock (or other debris) could do major damage to a person or even a base on the moon...
/wonders how many at NASA are reading this and thinking 'uh oh'
But, of course, I'm sure they've thought of that and will prepare accordingly...
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from Mediocre Minds - A. Einstein
Why by 2015 we'll all have hover cars, and space travel will be commen place. We'll also have Robot slaves that will strike us down and enslave us later that year. Or Monkeys... Either one.
I heard there was oil on the dark side of the moon...
-
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