Slashdot Mirror
Back to the Moon
starexplorer2001 writes "Space.com is reporting that NASA's planned trip back to the Moon isn't without a significant amount of science and technological innovation. Simply 'sponging off Apollo' won't do it. Among the issues: safer human spaceflight, lunar ice, sustainability, robotic scouting missions and more. This won't be easy."
We can't just use 60s technology to get there? I'm shocked!
I bet this question has been asked many times, but here goes:
Why was it possible to go to the moon in '69 but not possible now even using the same old technology? Has the moon/earth/atmostphere/space changed?
Please stop entering code 2,2,7,6,6,4
"The Apollo program cost $25 billion, equivalent to about $125 billion in today's dollars."
[Source: http://www.waltercunningham.com/op_ed_0204.htm%5D
You guys are COMPLETELY forgetting about space oil!
The reason we won't use Apollo Hardware is because we want to do much more then land 2 guys on the moon for more then a week. The ultimate goal is to build a moon base and use that as practice for a Mars base. In order to do that you need to bring more stuff to the moon and be able to keep your service module in orbit unmanned for up to 6 months at a time. This isn't all that hard. But currently NASA is working with its current budget so things won't get really rolling until Space Station is built and shuttle retires. Those two programs ending will free up almost $10B a year for NASA. That is plenty of money to do a slow gradual build up to a moon base.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
The whole "back to the Moon" thing is a load of garbage.
Your short-sightedness is amazing here. "There's nothing more to learn on the Moon"? Where do you get that from? We've sent precisely six manned missions to the moon in all of human history. Only twelve humans have actually walked on it. Almost none of them had a strong scientific background (although many learned it in order to be more effective). Yet we know everything there is to know about the moon according to you. Your hubris is absolutely mind-boggling.
Experts have long admitted that launching a mission to Mars from the Moon is far more difficult than doing it from here.
Umm...exactly who is proposing we launch a Mars mission from the Moon? Bush sure isn't, and neither is any other sane person. To build up a launch infrastructure on the Moon would be a multi-decade endeavor and would likely eclipse a Mars mission for sheer complexity and cost.
No, the Moon is a beta test site, if you will. No human has left low Earth orbit for almost four decades! All the engineers who made Apollo work are either dead or retired. Our heavy lift capacity is completely moribund. With but few exceptions, we're going to have to learn a bunch of things all over again. Which is a better place to learn these things, a spot that's only a couple of days away from the Earth via free-return trajectory, or a spot that's months away with no such option? It doesn't take much more intelligence than a turnip to understand the former is far more advantageous than the latter. It's safer, it'll cost less, and we'll get quicker "knowledge returns".
Once we rediscover how to get to the Moon, setting up a moonbase will essentially be a "dry run" for setting up a Mars habitat. True, the lunar surface and Martian surface don't have a lot in common, but they're both immensely rugged and challenging environments to construct even a sand castle. Learning how to build a moonbase will teach us in no small part how to build a Mars base. Or would you rather we get to Mars first then try to figure all this out then, when astronauts are beyond any easy help from Earth?
NASA has become the "Santa Claus" of the U.S. Government. Keep the children excited and maybe they'll think there really is a future, after all.
While I'll freely admit NASA is merely a vast sinkhole for funds and functioning solely as a reason to have a space station right now, the return to the Moon does not fit that category. There is a future if ostriches like yourself would only see it. Instead, your cynicism and politcal bias appears to be clouding what might otherwise be a capability for sound judgement on your part.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
NASA is hiring many Apollo engineers back as consultants to help with this. These guys did a lot with basic engineering skills and great common sence and a WHOLE lot of testing. Many are alive and in their late 60's.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
March 14, 1992: Vice President Dan Quayle, who heads the space council, made public a space policy directive approved by President Bush that assigns "major roles" to the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy...
What? President George H. W. Bush got support for a big NASA budget to put men on Mars and then diverted the money to defense and energy contractors? Must've been a fluke. That could never happen again in a million years!
January 15, 2004: President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding
Saying "the desire to explore and understand is part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond.
Are you nuts or just stupid? As a previous poster said, the Apollo program cost $135 Billion. What private entity has that kind of capital lying around to spend doing something as extremely risky and dangerous as sending humans to another celestial body?
Even worse, what private company would spend ANY money on a purely scientific mission such as the Mars landers or Titan probe?
If there were ANY instances of private companies doing anything successful like this, you'd have a point. But you're just trolling.
Helium-3 is a good reason to return to the moon .
6 30.html
.....
...
r ia_and_candidates_for_terrestrial_reactions
...
It is theorized that there are over 1 million cubic tons,
with oil over $50 a barrel, and helium-3 then being worth
about 8 billion USD a ton, the total worth equalling 8,000 trillion USD .
It could smash the US deficit with 7,991 trillion USD to spare .
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Also keep in mind most of the "other" moons have this as well .
Here are some photos of the reactor at the University of Wisconsin :
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/iec/GeneralOpPics.htm
http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/iec/GeneralOpPicsII.htm
25 tons could power the US electrical needs for a year :
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000
I don't need to tell anyone that the US is the largest user of electricity on
the planet at present, and slated for massive growth .
The current immmigration bill sets aside for 100 - 200 million new citizens .
Kulcinski adds that, if it sold for $4 billion a metric ton, helium-3 would still be a
good energy value: "That's the equivalent of paying $28 a barrel for oil."
It will be a cold day in hell before we see oil at $28 a barrel again
So adjust the math accordingly
It becomes more viable with every passing day .
If we can make solar mining robots for the moon to process the soil, and
then use a mass driver to fling a projectile canister into lunar orbit for pick up.
Then a lunar orbit robotic satellite mass driver to fire it into earth geo-sync orbit .
Then have either a new space station, shuttle, or satellite prep it for re-entry
into the ocean for pick up much like the apollo capsules .
The robotic equipment could be tested here on earth prior to deployment on the moon .
It might be possible to make robots that could build it all via remote control, but
most likely we would initially need ppl to go to the moon to build the mass driver
and support facilities .
Building some or all of the support facilities underground would protect it to some
degree versus leaving it exposed on the surface .
At some future point 3HE+3HE fusion will be achieved and it will have zero nuetron emissions
and thus be truly clean as per the following link .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Crite
Hope for the future
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"