Slashdot Mirror
NASA Weighs Moon Plans
mknewman writes "Space.com is reporting that NASA is set to roll out next month a U.S. national strategy for lunar exploration, one that outlines both robotic exploration needs and the rationale for sending humans back to the Moon. This has been sorely missing in Bush's Vision for Space Exploration."
That's easy. It'll weight 1/6 of what it does on Earth.
I've been wondering for years why we would ever want to step foot again on the moon given the risks and massive costs (other than the obviously political reason of: the chinese are doing it). This article is actually semicoherent, and it's great to see them putting a heavy focus on robotic exploration.
What I'd still rather see though, is human exploration being conducted on an "as needed" basis. For example, let's put robots on the moon that can determine if the moon can be utilized for its supposed natural resources (as NASA contends it has), and if these robots can't mine fuel or other supplies that could be used for a Mars mission, we can send people up there.
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
Tastes like no chees I've ever tasted.
NASA Weighs Moon Plans
It would depend on the number of pages, but on nice 24lb paper with a clay coating, the plans really shouldn't weigh more than a few ounces. Now, 100lb cover stock would be a different story. You might need a rocket scientist to calculate that.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
I think, perhaps, they should amass the plans instead. That way the lander won't crash when one contractor weighs its plans in Earth gravity and the other in Lunar.
KFG
The real action is going to be on Phobos and Mars, in that order. Don't look for the next Iceland, look for the next New York City, the slam-dunk locations in space. The Lagrange points in the Earth-Moon system, Earth-crossing "dead" comets and Mar's small moons are good candidates. Phobos allows both resource extraction including actual water (not maybes in polar shadows), Phobos also offers realtime contact with Mars and the convenience of working in familiar freefall. The moon has a lot of unaddressed operational issues that a Phobos/Mars orbitter and mine scheme doesn't possess. Admittedly there is a lot of handwaving in this, but we discussed the tradeoffs here:
r d=businesstech&Number=503952&page=&view=&sb=&o=
http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Boa
Josh
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
Bugger the costs, just charge it: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I think its because its been putting on a few pounds.
God spoke to me.
What NASA really needs to do is to take a step back and redesign their platforms if we really want to get manned space exploration / commercialization back on track. The shuttle fleet is already beyond its EOL cycle and we don't have a viable alternative ready at the moment. In order to fulfill current promises and to keep in the race with other countries, current plans call for the re-development of basically what we were flying in the 1960s, rockets with capsules - albeit updated. Interestingly enough, the congress that authorized the money for the development of the shuttle also made a stipulation that the plans of the previous generation of Apollo rockets had to be destroyed - in other words, go forward or don't go. I know NASA has been researching alternative technologies capable of achieving orbit for many years, but I'm not sure the US (or another country for that matter) has made a significant commitment of money and support by the people to further the technologies required for effective manned space travel. IMO, if I were to compare the development of the space programs to the development of the aeronautical industry, we are still flying single engine prop planes with an open cockpit. The necessary base technologies in my opinion are... 1) Propulsion mechanism Albeit with different chemicals and forms (solid/liquid), we are using the same propulsion mechanisms as those engineered in WWII. Thankfully the guidance system has been greatly improved though... 2) Energy Whether it be for the propulsion mechanism or for powering the facilities on the craft/facility, power generation or harvesting is very important. 3) Gravity For short term missions (1-3 weeks) it is not a great concern, but the longer people stay in space or even reduced gravity environments, more time must be spent on maintaining the body so that it has a fighting chance when returning to Earth. While vigorous exercise might be good for a lot of us, it doesn't make a lot of sense to need to spend a lot of time on exercise when you're doing a mission that costs as much as it does.
Personally, I think we should skip Mars for the time being and concentrate on getting useful things done on the moon. Once we have some real manufacturing capability, building larger projects, for both earth orbit and beyond, would become much easier. In the long run, we want to encourage private enterprise in space. By blazing a trail, NASA can jump start the process.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
The current plan for the first flight is convert a passenger jet for space travel so that the US Congress can be relocated to the Moon. A second much larger craft is planned for a trip bearing all the lawyers. Since one in every three americans is a lawyer this should help reduce the populations problems and free up the court system. The Congressmen and lawyers are quite enthusiastic about the plan since the earth will be consumed by a space goat shortly after the second flight. If there's time a third flight is planned for lobbyist and the handfull of remaining conservative leaders. Once all are relocated the earth, err I mean moon should be safe.
This has always struck me as absurd about Bush's Moon and Mars plans, he's been drumming up such ideas now and then, while at the same time slashing NASA budget. Why anybody believes he's doing anything other than posturing is beyond me.
They need to be careful and be sure the Rebels don't get ahold of those plans.
After all, that's no moon.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Sure, it might be a good idea to go to the moon and explore some more, but what's clearly missing here is AN EXIT STRATEGY for getting off of the moon after we're done.
Why is it that whenever anyones says "... Bush's vision ..." I think of crayons, preschool and cirlces of paper?
>This has been sorely missing in Bush's Vision for Space Exploration.
Bush wants to make Star Trek a reality, but geeks still find a way to bash him. Sheesh!
How about you start treating this subject with the gravity it deserves?
I am about the most nerdy, curious, star trek fan person in town. There is nothing more fascinating to me than exploring the universe. However, I'm completely opposed to using government funds to send people into space.
Let's let the private sector explore space.
People talk about the "benefits" of the space program, like plastics! Great, an oil-consuming product that takes hundreds of thousands of years to bio-degrade. If that's not progress, I don't know what is!
Resources on Earth are very limited. We all work very hard to pay our taxes. Let's let the private sector lead the way into this exciting new place!
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
There's a good reason for manned exploration: people -- otherwise known as 'taxpayers' -- don't care about and aren't inspired by robotic exploration. When the Mars Rover does something, it's lucky to get a 5 second mention on CNN. Putting a robot on another planet isn't nearly as tangible an accomplishment as putting a person somewhere.
When people want a measuring stick to judge the successfulness of our technology, they still say "we put a man on the moon..." (generally followed by "...and we still can't do [something]"); you don't hear people saying "we put a robot on Mars" or "we put launched a deep-space probe beyond our Solar System..." While important, virtually everything NASA has done since the moon landing, with the possible exception of the Hubble Space Telescope (because of the neat pictures it sent back), has failed to capture the public's interest. And as a result, they have seen their funding grow slimmer and slimmer.
To be honest, doing exploration that doesn't get the average people excited is shortsighted, because it's ultimately those people, apathetic and ignorant as they may be, who control the purse strings that are the lifeblood of the space program. If they don't care about NASA, then NASA gets its budget cut by the Congresscritters next time they're looking for money to fund their Bridge to Nowhere. And that means no money for 'real' scientific research.
Putting people back on the moon ASAP is essential to restore interest in the Space Program to a country that has, by and large, forgotten it. Manned space exploration today is a joke: it's tourism. The adventure of space is something mostly reserved for a generation that's obsessing over the costs of prescription drugs, and has stopped looking outwards for new frontiers. The younger generation hasn't been given any reason by NASA to be interested. I haven't even seen as many kids these days saying that they want to be astronauts as used to. (And why would they -- ride up into space on a vehicle that would be cat food cans already, if it had been an automobile; have basically nowhere to go when you get up there; and there's always the risk of the whole thing falling apart on the way down.)
NASA is a far cry from the national inspiration that it was to previous generations, and unless it can demonstrate some ability to capture the imaginations of today's citizens, it's going to be budget-cut into nonexistence.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
There's no oil on the moon as far as I know...
-- Samir Gupta, Ph. D. Head, New Technology Research Group, Nintendo Co. Ltd., Kyoto, Japan.
Sorta proves my point. They were inspired the first time we put a man on the moon. Not quite so much the second, and by the third, they weren't interested until something got screwed up.
It's the firsts that are important, and that's what NASA has to be continually aiming for. It has to constantly be extending our reach; pushing us further and further out.
I can guarantee you that the first time a person walks on Mars, while it may not be quite the same event as the Moon landing, that will get people to stop what they're doing and care, if only for a little while.
The idea is that you have to be the first to do something, and thereby capture the public's imagination; then, when you have their attention, use it to get the resources you need to consolidate that achievement, and start moving on to the next 'first.'
If NASA wants to keep going, it basically needs to give every generation a moon landing (and preferably more frequently than that). If people don't perceive that the money we're spending is taking us to new places, then they're going to take it and fritter it away elsewhere.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."