Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's New Mission to the Moon

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the to-the-moon-alice dept.

mattnyc99 writes "Popular Mechanics has a new, in-depth preview of NASA's Orion spacecraft, tracking the complex challenges facing the engineers of the CEV (which NASA chief Michael Griffin called 'Apollo on steroids') as America shifts its focus away from the Space Shuttle and back toward returning to the moon by 2020. After yesterday's long op-ed in the New York Times concerning NASA's about-face, Popular Mechanic's interview with Buzz Aldrin and podcast with Transterrestrial.com's Rand Simberg raise perhaps the most pressing questions here: Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? And will we actually stay there?"

12 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. it's a joke, people by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is it worth going back to the lunar surface?

    What do you mean "going back"? That assumes we were there a first time.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  2. Updated Technology by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Funny

    The initial estimates are that this time around the mission is going to be far less expensive. One NASA official, who wished to remain anonymous, said, "CGI has really matured to a point where shooting a return to the moon is now viable. Instead of a sandy soundstage we'll simply have our guys in front of a greenscreen. In fact, some of the more optimistic estimates posit that by 2020 we won't even need live bodies in the studio."

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  3. we smoke while we flip the bird by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    who cares about the MOON!

    The boston police?

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  4. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Modern space ships don't have to be docked in water.

    Wasn't sure if you knew that or not.

    They fly around in the sky.

  5. Yikes. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 3, Funny

    the CEV (which NASA chief Michael Griffin called 'Apollo on steroids')
    So Orion will grow boobs and beat up its girlfriend?
    --
    Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
  6. With apologies to Kennedy: by jbeaupre · · Score: 3, Funny

    "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and leaving him safely there."

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    1. Re:With apologies to Kennedy: by JazzLad · · Score: 3, Funny

      Safely or no, what kind of country are we that we can't even send our president to the moon?

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  7. Sextant? by Flying+pig · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can somebody better acquainted with the mechanics of sending a vehicle to the Moon and back please explain why Buzz Aldrin recommends taking a sextant? Or does the tried and tested technology to be used this time involve lashing the Captain to the aerial to take the latitude while the crew pile on the solar sails?

    --
    Pining for the fjords
  8. Re:Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    >The moon is the first step.

    I thought it was the giant leap...? But don't quote me on that.

  9. Re:Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? by itsdapead · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes

    Couple of IFs:

    1. Have a long-term plan involving permanent habitats, looking for exploitable resources, building staging posts etc...
    2. Long term goal: instead of only sending test pilots with the Right Stuff, work towards being able to send scientists and engineers who have the OK stuff and know which rock to pick up.
    3. Build hardware to suit the missions - don't plan the missions around the hardware that you'd like to build.
    4. As for Mars - an Apollo style "go, grab some rocks, come back" would be a complete waste of time and a tragedy waiting to happen. Don't go unless you're planning to build a sustainable habitat before you unwrap your descent stage and see if it survived the landing. Its not like the moon, where you can get back into space by lighting a fart. Might want to get a better hit rate with robot probes before sending people, too.
    5. Do whatever is possible to lock in long term funding, get cross-party support etc. so that the funding doesn't get canned when the ratings drop.
    6. Talking of ratings - learn from SciFi and put some big fricking laser guns on it. Look at the evidence: Starship Enterprise: big fricking guns = 4 spinoff series and 10 movies. Battlestar Galactica : big fricking guns = 3+ seasons (plus the original) and maybe a spinoff; Star Wars: big fricking guns - even the holiday special and Ep 1 didn't kill the series; Babylon 5? Big Fricking Guns = 5 series and 4 TVMs. Firefly: guy hanging out of airlock with a rifle = canned after 12 episodes and a movie that no one went to. Apollo: No guns, got beaten by "I Love Lucy" in the ratings - the movie was great but didn't run to a sequel. QED. Fit big fricking guns! (or carry a sonic screwdriver - that only seems to work if you're British)
    --
    In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  10. Re:Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? by Psiren · · Score: 2, Funny

    Guess what would happen to your dick in the lunar vacuum.

    It'd get bigger! Result!
  11. Re:Is it worth going back to the lunar surface? by AJWM · · Score: 2, Funny

    seeing how far I can spit in low grav.

    Probably about as far as the inside surface of your space helmet. Ewww.

    --
    -- Alastair