NASA Unveils Strategy for Return to the Moon

mknewman writes to tell us that NASA recently announced plans to build a permanent base on the moon by 2024. The (still tentative) plans call for building the base on one of the moon's poles, which constantly receive light from the sun and have less temperature fluctuation. This base will start small in 2020 and grow over time with the hopes of eventually supporting 180-day stays and providing a jumping-off point to Mars."

Comments

FP for once...

[advocate_one]

and I was able to read the article first... just hope they're not gonna be bean-counted to death on this one... those auditors are already sharpening up their knives to trim the budget... I'd hate to see an astronaut die because things were cut too fine...

First Things First

[DumbSwede]

Why not spend a decade concentrating our efforts on designing and building radically new heavy launch lift concepts? While we are far from being able to build a space elevators, we could build both launch assist catapults and orbit assist tethers.

Re:First Things First

[Richard_at_work]

A billion bucks could also make life seriously worse on Earth - how much has the Iraq war cost so far? NASA doesnt spend money in space, it spends money here, people get paid, companies get paid, life goes on. We have been throwing stupendous amounts of money at humanities ills for the past 50 years, do you really think a few billion more is going to accelerate the process where a few hundred billion hasnt been able to?

Earth, humanity will get fixed, but at its own pace.

Beancounters and budgets

[wasted]

... just hope they're not gonna be bean-counted to death on this one... those auditors are already sharpening up their knives to trim the budget... I'd hate to see an astronaut die because things were cut too fine...

I would guess that the lunar budget would be cut totally before it got that fine. There is plenty of time before an actual landing for Congress to cut that part of NASA's budget, saying "The money could be better spent here on Earth," leaving out the last part of the phrase. ("The money could be bettter spent here on Earth getting pork for my constituents so I get re-elected and/or my party gains more seats.")

I hope that it doesn't happen that way.

Re:Beancounters and budgets

[E 99]

But if you can find the United States on this ordered list of Current Account Balances [cia.gov], and compare its number to, say, Germany or Japan, you might begin to understand the U.S. economy's problem.
I guess looking at that list, you would either have to assume that the U.S. has the worst economy in the world or the best economy in the world. The obvious truth is that it's the best. Just look at the trade deficit. All the other countries make a living selling stuff to us -- our economy drives the world economy. We're the only country with that much debt because we're the only country that could afford it. We should pay it down, however, and there's only one realistic way to go about it: (1) conclude the military actions we're involved in in Afghanistan and Iraq, (2) get back a Republican Congress so we can run budget surplusses again.

P.S. Be careful before accepting any raises or new jobs. If you ever end up in the top 15% "rich" bracket, you'll have to change all your conspiracy theories.

The plan will adapt to commercial developments.

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA is fully aware of the current work in commercial spaceflight.

Some NASA centers (*cough* Marshall *cough*) feel threatened by it. The brass, and some of the centers, love it, though. They can't say it strongly in public right now, but they would love to take advantage of it to make lunar exploration cheaper and more sustainable.

If the commercial sector --- including COTS, Bigelow, and the other players --- take root and grow, expect NASA to revise the lunar plans. The current plan is the fallback plan. Read the words they used today. They make very clear that the plan is provisional, pending future developments.

Re:Never gonna happen

[Nyeerrmm]

I'd say this is the exact problem with the space program. Yes, the ISS is a steaming pile of crap. Spending our the to make the planet we will all live and die on a better place is a noble goal, however, its not the only goal. I think we already have a large number of people concentrating on that. That is I know people involved in Amnesty International, developing new hybrid vehicle systems, Engineers Without Borders, and the best of organized religion (mission trips concentrated on helping people as opposed to simple evangelism). I hear of even more here on slashdot, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the One Laptop Per Child Project, and the endless watch for Big Brother-ism and the tyranny of monopoly. I personally do some work with regards to the improvement of the educational system within the US, which is one of my main personal cause du jours. However, I think with all this effort spent to improve our earthly existence, theres a little room to get us off this planet and help to provide some relief that way. Obviously it won't have immediate effect. The early colonist's to America didn't immediately stem Europe's problems even directly related to population growth, however in the end its impossible to deny its effects. And with space we dont have the genocidal side effects that are such a stain on that period in history. The future of humanity (in my own very humble opinion) depends on us establishing offworld settlements, and whether thats in the next 20 years, the next 200, or the next 2000, I plan on doing my damndest to push us forward, and supporting others who do, because some people need to do it. And there's nothing wrong with a small portion of the national budget going that way too (and it is a small portion, look it up.) Find your own way to save the world, improve it, or keep it going. All of those things are vital.

Re:Cost for supporting people is high.

[nacnud75]

Well seeing as the point of sending people to the moon is to figure out how to get humans to survive off planet just sending robots seems rather pointless. There is nothing to stop you sending robots as well in fact sending both is probably far more productive than either alone as then enhance each others strengths.

Re:less energy to go direct?

[camperdave]

You don't stockpile your supplies on the Moon. You stockpile them in Earth orbit. You don't build a spaceport on the moon. That would be pointless. You build an interplanetary spacecraft in orbit. The moon serves but a single purpose in a Mars mission: Technology proving ground. Can we build functional habitats? Can we stay in space for months, years at a time? What tools do we need? What issues might arise?

The only role the moon might play in the actual Mars launch would be as a gravitational slingshot.