Slashdot Mirror
NASA Funded Study States People Could Be On the Moon By 2021 For $10 Billion
MarkWhittington writes: The Houston Chronicle reported that NextGen Space LLC has released the results of a study that suggests that if the United States were to choose to do space in some new and creative ways, American moon boots could be on the lunar surface by 2021. The cost from the authorization to the first crewed lunar landing would be just $10 billion. The study was partly funded by NASA and was reviewed by the space agency and commercial space experts.
What good does going back to the moon do? Well, other than lining the pockets of corporations.
Unless billionaires want to pony up the cost, and then some. Otherwise, no, huge waste of taxpayer money.
We already know how to get to the moon, it's just a matter of coughing up the money to actually GO to the moon. Instead we get corporate welfare to keep the Boeing and friends in business, while doing the space equivalent of NASCAR, just going in orbit over and over.
We've established that another set of footprints on the moon doesn't do much for us. Though maybe the journey would, a bit. I really wish we'd aim bigger.
when they originally announced the SLS and orion, the plan was for 2018 or 2019. but the funding got stripped out.
sadly nasa is the red headed stepchild, it is one of the few government orgs that i actually care about and it gets pennies compared to orgs who want to ensure that some mole that no one has ever heard of remains protected. Its wrong
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
That's a lane widening of a major Interstate passing through a couple of large cities. It's peanuts. I'd rather do Mars, but if we can get back to the moon on that kind of budget...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
What's there for us on Mars? Some ice, lots of dust and some caves. Nothing else. No atmosphere, no energy, no plants, no *nothing*.
Traveling 45 million miles for that is a completely *stupid* idea.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
I'm not convinced this is about actually accomplishing anything, other than growing NASA's budget. The thinking sounds more a long the lines of:
"What proposition could we provide to the American public that we could A) Actually achieve B) Tax them for".
The proposal is to put a small base near a pole, mine water, turn it into fuel, and ship it up to a Langrange point. Outbound ships can refuel on their way to Mars (manned) or elsewhere (robotic). It sounds like a reasonable reason to go to the moon.
There's also some interesting things you could do with science experiments on the moon. Lots of hard vacuum, low gravity and radio silence on the far side.
Thus, it would really cost $30Bn.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Okay, so let's terraform it first.
The average lifetime productivity of an American is about $2 million. Why should we spend 5000 lifetimes worth of productivity to go to the moon? A place we've already been to before, and which is close enough that we can just carry all needed supplies from Earth. There's practically nothing left to learn from such an endeavor which we cannot already learn from the ISS. The only proposed moon project I've heard of worth a damn is to put a radio telescope on the far side, shielded from all the EM noise from Earth.
Manned space exploration already has a terrible return on investment compared to unmanned. But if we're going to do it, focus on solving new problems - long term space travel for a mission to Mars. The R&D into constructing a self-contained ecosystem and recycling water and oxygen will actually have some practical applications here on Earth.
Thank you for your interest in joining the Gay Wigger Association of DICE* (GayWAD)! GayWADs worldwide are happy that you'd like to become part of our
constantly enlarging member ship (come sail away 8======D~)
Unlike other geek fraternities that you might have heard about, GayWAD accepts members of all races, creeds, and colors. We don't even have a technical inclination requirement. As our founders stated in the Annals of GayWAD, Chapter 1: "You don't have to be a geek, as long as you like it Greek." They were, of course, referring to the penis in anus style of sexual relations. Don't despair, as attaining full fabulous lifetime status in GayWAD is easy. The only prerequisites for membership in Gay Wigger Association of DICE* are that you meet all of the following conditions:
To submit your Gay Wigger Association of DICE* Membership Application, simply do nothing. Congratulations, you're now a GayWAD!
If you require a specific membership number for purposes such as framing, docking, or prestigious inclusion upon your business cards and resume, please take down this number: 69.
Optionally, you may complete the following survey by replying to this post, indicating affirmative responses with an X in each appropriate box:
GayWAD Membership Survey (OPTIONAL)
[ ] I am gay
[ ] I am a wigger
[ ] I have used SLASHDOT VIDEO to find a sex partner
After completion of this optional survey, your Slashdot post ID shall serve as your unique Gay Wigger Association of DICE* membership ID.
Your GayWAD membership kit** is on its way.
* GayWAD is neither affiliated with nor endorsed by DICE.COM.
** GayWAD membership kit no longer includes HIV self-test catheter.
Sounds good.
You get started on the atmosphere, I'll work on finishing this beer.
What about science -- astronomy, etc? You can build much bigger telescopes there than you could ever launch into orbit, and the farside would be perfect for radio astronomy.
Also -- practice makes perfect. If you can live on the moon, then you can live on Mars. And if there is a problem then Earth is only 3 days away. Better to get it right close by and then go successfully to Mars than to try for Mars straightaway and fail. Because if you fail on a Mars expedition the likelihood is that it will be a long time before it is tried again.
we need to colonise a habitable planet
neither the moon or mars has a breathable atmosphere
Going there is not the problem. Staying there is. Just going there would be a colossal waste of time, energy and resources, as it accomplishes nothing. Robotic exploration is far, far cheaper.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Why near a pole? On the equator. A Lunar space elevator could be made with existing materials technology.
The Moon is actually a harder test of habitat recycling. Mars has good amounts of CO2 which may be used for oxygen extraction (see the MOXIE experiment). Mars does have a minimal atmosphere (not a complete vacuum) and possibly easily accessible water ice resources.
If we can figure out how to live in orbit or on the Moon for long term, without resupply, then Mars should be a snap.
Note that they ARE working on a lot of self-sufficiency initiatives on the ISS - water recycling and such. Long term this is stuff that needs to be figured out cold for mankind to go anyplace in space. Similar initiatives on the Moon would allow use of the regolith and perhaps water ices for material needs.
We should not go to the moon every generation or so just for the glory of putting more prints in the lunar dust; we should use it as a boot camp to train to go to other, less hostile places in space.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
Why near a pole? Water.
Of course there's good reason to go back to the moon. Having no atmosphere is advantageous for some things (eg solar panels and certain manufacturing processes), its lighter mass means it is easier to launch stuff from, its nearness makes it a nice practice colony, and several more. For example, you could build a railgun style cargo delivery system to deliver raw material into space. Certain future advances (like 3d printing and robotics) could make for a surprisingly small investment to colonize the entire moon.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Yes and the JWST was going to cost $.5-B and launch in 2007. Now the launch has been pushed back to 2018 and is costing $8.8-B. Using that track record the cost will be $176-B. Got and other ideas?
10 billion? For something that has already been done 50 years ago?
I wonder how much those guys would charge for inventing a method to print a book.
You want to get people on the moon? Easy! Oh, you want them back too? Well...
In today's dollars, a single Saturn V launch was about $20 billion. So now we are saying we can do it for half of that, including all of the research and development? The entire Apollo project was estimated in 2005 dollars as $170 Billion.
I would bet it will cost more like $100 billion including research. A single shot could probably be done for $15 billion.
NASA today doesn't have the budget for this sort of endeavor. In 1966, NASAs budget was $5.2 billion, or in today's dollars, $38.2 billion. Today's actual NASA budget is only $18.3 billion.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Define, "defensible". Because I think you're full of it.
Living on the surface of an alien planet under hostile conditions is a pretty tricky affair. Maintaining a presence on the 'dark' side of the moon so you can have even better astronomy is pretty cool. A staging area to look at working towards more of space is something we don't have now. Because we fucking well can has always been a marvelous idea.
The problems we need to solve for Mars? We can wok on those problems before having to solve a 2 year travel time with no escape plan.
So when you say "no defensible reason" I say bullshit. There's plenty we could do on the moon which actually is of value, and is entirely defensible. And which actually helps us learn about what we'd do on the surface of Mars. Or any other planetary surface.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
How about we bring all troops home, close all overseas bases, implement the Swiss defense system backed by crazy WMD's... Then spend the other 500 billion PER YEAR for manned exploration/colonization of anywhere/everywhere outside this planet...
Why build a permanent structure on the moon and go back by 2021?
If the USA doesn't and doesn't get there before the Chinese, then they will "own" the moon.
Sure there are various treaties about space sovereignty, etc, but do you want to count on the Chinese acceeding to demands to give up what they've claimed?
I don't think so. Look at what China is doing in the South China Sea.
If they get to the moon and do so before the USA does again, I'd expect the Chinese to start getting territorial about it.
This sorta begs the question of why we should send people to mars. Instead of looking at it as an opportunity to side channel technologies that may help us go to "other, less hostile places in space", I kinda would like an argument for why that would be a wiser investment than making our own planet less hostile, or maybe investigating whether we could send people to the under-explored worlds under our oceans, applying those $10 billion to exploring alternative energy sources, solving diseases, or paying teachers and improving crumbling schools.
I appreciate it's not a zero sum one-or-the-other game, but there are limited resources we've got,and while $10b may be a drop in the bucket and there is plenty of condemnable waste-- as a parent post notes, it does represent many thousands of lifetimes of american labor and value. So... we've got billions of people on this planet and immeasurable mysteries to be answered and places to be explored and problems to be solved here. I ask not as a bad-faith challenge but as an opportunity to explain to me... why send people to the moon so we can send people to mars so we can send people to (undiscovered?) less hostile places?
I know there are spinoff benefits to these pursuits, but I have to wonder if we could equally enjoy spinoff benefits and discoveries while also solving challenges that will concretely and directly positively affect billions of people on this planet, rather than an elite few astronauts who get to visit another one.
Thanks. I'll take your comments off the air.
Okay, but what happens when you add in the part about people getting back home?
Table-ized A.I.
Let's put the $10 billion to better use like finding a cure for one of the many illness that affect many so as to extend their life. The return on investment could be enormous not only because of the likely improvement in the quality of life of sufferers but also the elimination of the care that might be required for such a disease and the general population as well. Look what virologists and medicinal chemists have accomplished in the treatment of HIV AIDS or hepatitis C and how that research may improve treatments for other chronic ailments. There are so many conditions that need work that setting a priority for what to study will always be difficult.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Maintaining a presence on the 'dark' side of the moon so you can have even better astronomy is pretty cool.
Not just better telescopes, or even bigger ones. Imagine how big you can make radio telescopes there, and how much more sensitive they'll be with the Moon insulating them from all of the Earth's radio output.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Minerals on the moon will be worth trillions. The extraction of those minerals will not be hampered by laws designed to protect organic life making extraction on a massive scale possible.
The country with the foresight to establishes a permanent presence on the moon will in effect control it and will be the center of an economic boom never before seen in history.
The war in Afghanistan has cost more than $4 trillion dollars, and is costing $4 million per hour. And going to the moon again is a waste?
Now that all new developments are burying their power lines, we need somewhere else to fling our old boots.
What good does going back to the moon do?
Other than inspire a generation's interest in math, science and engineering? Other than the dual use of much of the technology that will be developed for the space program?
Both of these things were major benefits of the original space race and you are materially benefitting from both at this very moment.
How are you going to get those spinoff benefits and discoveries without actually doing work in space, and just sitting around here and funding social programs? You're not. The Apollo program yielded enormous economic benefits for the US due to the new technologies created; those would not have happened if we just increased teacher pay.
I'm not saying social programs and teacher pay increases shouldn't be done, but if you want actual advancement in technology, you have to actually do things which require that advancement. You can't just wait until all social problems are cured. That isn't going to happen for generations.
applying those $10 billion to exploring alternative energy sources, solving diseases, or paying teachers and improving crumbling schools.
+1
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Yeah, that's a great idea. Think I'll trade my spot at the bottom of this gravity well for a different spot at the bottom of a significantly crappier gravity well. You might think "No problem! We'll do it as a penal colony! After they clean the joint up -- kill all the Mars spiders and Mars snakes, us civilized folks will move in!" Wrong! Those prisoners are the base of the hugely profitable prison industry and if you send 'em all off-planet, you greatly increase overall costs while losing all the extra profits from the massive recidivism rates. Nope, I was the first one to want to get off-planet as a kid, but until they come up with an idea that doesn't involve moving to some other shithole of a planet, I'm staying put!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I'd rather them invest $10 billion dollars into discovering exactly the correct recipe for Soylent Green.
We should be able to have a full-meat diet without killing any animals.
The supply is ample: criminals, Muslims (tastes like chicken!), people from Canada, Americans who can't find Canada on a map, high school dropouts, 30 years olds that live in the basement playing video games all day.
no, huge waste of taxpayer money.
Wrong. It would be one of the most effective ways to inspire interest in kids of STEM. Far more than $10B will be flushed down STEM oriented programs for kids that are far less effective.
Not to mention the technological spinoffs that will benefit people. Clue: You are greatly benefiting from the original space race as you are reading this.
I appreciate it's not a zero sum one-or-the-other game, but there are limited resources we've got,and while $10b may be a drop in the bucket and there is plenty of condemnable waste-- as a parent post notes, it does represent many thousands of lifetimes of american labor and value. So... we've got billions of people on this planet and immeasurable mysteries to be answered and places to be explored and problems to be solved here. I ask not as a bad-faith challenge but as an opportunity to explain to me... why send people to the moon so we can send people to mars so we can send people to (undiscovered?) less hostile places?
The short answer is this...
We have all our eggs in one basket, Earth. Should anything happen to Earth, either from stupid humans or a very large rock hitting us, our whole race could be doomed and thus all that we have done and all that we could be is pointless...
It is spreading out the risk.
Actually most lunar space elevator designs I've seen have space elevators anchored at both the lunar equator and a pole, with cargo traveling to and from the pole.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
How are you going to get those spinoff benefits and discoveries without actually doing work in space, and just sitting around here and funding social programs?
Why not? If I am aiming for X benefits and in the process spin off Y and Z, that's good. But if X is something without any benefit, isn't it better to aim for A, a think of known direct benefit, and spin off B and C as indirect benefits? If at the end of achieving X we say "we got Y and Z which is great, but it was in service of a primary so-so goal"... why not say "Wow, we have achieved something of real practical benefit, A, which directly impacts billions of people and saves our planet. And in doing so, we got B and C as extra spinoff technologies."
Why can't we achieve side benefits in the pursuit of a target that is directly beneficial as opposed to, as my original question asks, something which is fascinating and interesting but not concretely a goal to solve actual issues for the planet and its inhabitants?
I'm not saying social programs and teacher pay increases shouldn't be done, but if you want actual advancement in technology, you have to actually do things which require that advancement. You can't just wait until all social problems are cured. That isn't going to happen for generations.
Lets agree that the $10b is going to go to a practical technological pursuit. Even an exploration of an unknown world. Why can't that world be on THIS planet,which is largely unexplored. Why can't it be an advance in energy consumption or generation technology? Or water purification technology? Or disease prevention technologies? Or something even bigger-- create life? Bring back the dead? Reverse climate change, that's not the point, we can brainstorm and make a list... But are there better goals that might have application that are directly beneficial-- "A" instead of "X"...?
You could argue that war is a human endeavour that at great financial expense leads to massive advances in technology that we benefit from every day. That is not a good argument for war. I'm suggesting that having a clear constructive target for the application and R&D of technology is a good thing, so why is sending people to mars of all things is what you'd advocate we should focus our attention and our $10b on?
Conservatively, let's say we could earn 2.5% annually in real terms (i.e. after inflation) on $10B. That's the rate the economy is projected to grow at long-term. So, $250M/year in perpetuity. That'd fund a lot of basic research, if that's what you're into.
I'd also feel better about spending $10B on a manned moon mission if the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio wasn't about 70% higher than it was 8 years ago.
It won't happen because NASA is completely unrealistic in how much they budget for these projects. They already get a massive amount of money. My mind is literally blown that it's still taking such a vast sum to do something we should pretty much already know how to do really well.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
why not say "Wow, we have achieved something of real practical benefit, A, which directly impacts billions of people and saves our planet.
Simple, because it's never worked that way before. You can't just invent things without a need for them; it rarely happens. Have you never heard of "necessity is the mother of invention"?
And conversely, it has worked the way I say before, namely with the Apollo program.
No one is going to invent great new technologies while working on social programs.
And finally, why do you think going to the Moon wouldn't have huge benefits at home? If it turns out we can mine resources there, that would be a huge economic boom. Or would you rather that we eliminate the EPA and destroy our environment in the pursuit of mineral resources? You don't think that would have huge economic consequences?
You're not an engineer, are you?
On the other hand moon dust isn't toxic.
He's got a T-Rex size carbon footprint as shown here: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
http://www.space.com/28189-moo...
There's definitely a reason to go back, because it's possible there's a lot of resources there which we could use here.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Yeah, let's inspire a generation to go into math, science and engineering so they can be the most learned burger flippers ever. Oh, sorry, can't do even that: they're oveequalified now. The world does not and will not engineers, scientists and mathematics in great numbers anymore: actually the need for them will dwindle as industrialized and technological society grinds to a halt for lack of energy. Fusion won't work. Fission is on the way out. Fossils are running out. Renewables won't be enough. The future is a bunch of barely self-sufficient agrarian communities weaning away from science and technology generation after generation. The dream is over.
I doubt that the USA wants China and India to be the first countries to discover whatever riches lie on the moon, or to colonize it first. Competition is not earthbound.
It's amazing that humanity has gotten here: that to find radio silence, we'd send people to the far side of the moon.
Water on the moon is a non-renewable resource. The rest of the world is likely to say "Hey, that belongs to all of us, not just to the nation who first has the technology to extract it."
The article says "Although NASA paid for the $100,000 report it is unlikely to immediately embrace its conclusions." $100,000 is perhaps half an engineer-year of analysis. It may be a good start, but I'd want to be a whole lot more thorough before deciding how to spend tens of billions of dollars.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Except that $10 billion isn't going to actually result in alternative energy sources, any solved diseases or up to par schools.
The study suggests a budget of $10 billion over a 5 year period. That is $2 billion annually for those three other fields and that is if you only do it as a 5 year project.
A 5 year project for schools is nothing and will probably do more harm than good since that kind of organization needs a bit more stability and long term thinking.
That leave $10 billion to research alternative energy sources and cure diseases.
To put things in perspective the Ebola research budget has already gotten an increase larger than the total budget suggested for this project and the annual budget for that single disease is supposed to reach $46.2 billion by the 2021. (The suggested end time for this project.)
Adding some $2 billion annually to that will help, but not much, and after that the research is still not estimated to be finished by then. It's just the annual budget increase that is planned so far.
Like, it isn't even relevant to use plural in energy sources, diseases and schools. Thinking that $10 billion will be significant in all three is just not on the map.
Moon's a good first step for learning - it's closer, it has plenty of mass to hide under in emergencies and do basic construction with, and it gives you a little bit of gravity so you can handle the learning to live in space thing separately from learning to live in microgravity. Lessons learned from that can be transferred to habitats with spin gravity later, but living in space is the hardest step.
The beginning of the end for the Moon - for it shall suffer the same fate as Earth.
R.I.P. Moon.
Then you should just kill yourself now.
Wasn't the Shuttle supposed to make access to space cheap and simple?
Both of these things were major benefits of the original space race and you are materially benefitting from both at this very moment.
While you may be right, that doesn't mean that going to the moon *again* will have the same effect. Maybe the means to do so should now be used in another way.
If there is no-one left to mourn the loss, who cares if mankind is obliterated? Space travel for scientific reasons aside, don't you think we would better spend the resources for "spreading out the risk" on improving the planet we are on now?
Why did you bother to expend the energy to type this paragraph? Why did you ever get up in the morning?
It's been asked time and again. Why? I mean, we've been there already. We learned that the moon ain't made of cheese and there's also none of that moon-gold lying about that some were hoping for. It's not made of silver as so many alchemists dreamed and it's barely sensible as a staging area for further exploration of the solar system, which would again raise the "why bother" question.
And I have to agree, there is really little, if anything, to be gained directly from going there. Or even establishing a more or less permanent residency on it. Pretty much anything we could probably do there we can already do on the ISS, some of it better (due to microgravity instead of the lower-than-earth gravity of the moon) some worse (since the moon is less affected by Earth's magnetosphere and hence some solar readings could be done better), but in general there are only a few things we can't already do on the ISS.
So why?
The benefits are actually outside the "mundane" fact of us going there. The moon is more a means to an end. One, more tangible, benefit that was already mentioned is that we have seen in the 60s how necessity is the mother of inventions, and how the US wanting to go to the moon caused a lot of rapid development in areas affected by that goal. Rocketry, propulsion, metallurgy, computing, electrical engineering. The list is long and diverse. The US remained on the pinnacle of the world's technology for nearly two decades, mostly due to the advantage it had from this program.
Another, often overlooked but in my opinion at the very least as important, if not even more important, effect was intangible and hard to grasp. It gave the US a huge boost in cohesion internally and status internationally. You may remember that this time of the moonshot was a rather tumultuous time for the US, and the world in general. The 1960s were certainly a decade that could have shook the nation apart. Kennedy assassinated. The civil rights movement fighting for the rights of the black population, with MLK shot as well. And let's not forget about the Vietnam war. Yet when you ask people, no matter the creed, color or origin, they will think back of the 1960s not as a decade of strife and turmoil, but as a great decade where everyone was thinking of great things, where anything was considered possible and where everyone thought that they can make it. After all, hey, if they can land a man on the moon, I can (insert goal in life here).
And we sorely lack this today.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why stop at the moon? Let's see if someone can travel around the world in less than 80 days! Let's build a railroad that could stretch all the way from the east coast to the west coast! Let's try to reach the top of Mount Everest!
It doesn't impress me in any way, shape or form to listen to people debate about whether or not we can afford to re-invent 50 year old technology so that we can do the exact same thing.
Build a goddamned space elevator. Or a mass driver. Or let's have some talk about the progress in nanotech and biotech that might lead to a plausible mechanism of terraforming. Not this nostalgic shit. It is painful to watch.
Because my life does not revolve around any perceived bullshit reason to "contribute to science" or "inspire the next generation to do blah blah". Life is good, provided you understand how to live within your limits. Humans have been living for thousands of years without the technological craze and will go on living for more thousands of years when the technological craze has passed. And it will pass because simply we cannot afford it anymore. In 50 years there won't be an internet and computers will be scarce again. In 100 years we won't have electricity for anything but the bare necessities. But humans will still live and be happy, because they will have outgrown them and will lead a simpler, less stressful life. There will also be less of us, and in about 300 years we'll have at most one hundredth of the population we used to have worldwide. Nobody will miss the Space Age, the Information Age and the Industrial Age because nobody will remember them. In the end, all of mankind's "great struggles" will have been for naught. Think about it when advocating the Next Big Useless Endeavour.
Yea, let's stop employing people and just put everyone in the country on welfare.
Because my life does not revolve around any perceived bullshit reason to "contribute to science" or "inspire the next generation to do blah blah". Life is good, provided you understand how to live within your limits.
Your limits being what the money you pinch from your mothers purse.
NASA was saying the exact same thing back in the 80s when I went to Space Camp
I want us to go back to the moon as a first step to a permanent moon base. perhaps something similar to the International Space Station, only affixed to the Moon's surface instead of in low Earth orbit. It would be a good training ground for how to deal with living on another world while still being relatively close to Earth. (Mars shouldn't be the first place we try to build a permanently manned base.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Fusion won't work. Fission is on the way out. Fossils are running out. Renewables won't be enough.
Sounds like you just named 4 excellent reason why we need people that are smart in science and math.
They should start a kickstarter.
You can put together the smartest eggheaded boffins in the world and they won't be able to do what is simply not possible. Faster than light travel is not possible. Time travel is not possible. Reversing or nullifying entropy is not possible. The laws are physics are unbreakable now, they were unbreakable at the beginning of the universe and will still be unbreakable at its end. We thought that given enough research we would find a loophole but all research has shown is that this loophole does not exist. Science says: "stars are not for mankind". Sorry, kids. "Star Trek" is as real as "The Hobbit".
1 moonshot (10B$) = 14 New Horizons missions (0.7B$)
The moon is perfectly positioned to lob rocks at the earth. BIG rocks. With enough kinetic energy to destroy a city. Except you won't see them coming like you would with an ICBM lifting off from earth that has a noisy radar and thermal signature and already has a satellite pointed at its launch location. What's more, once your city was reduced to a crater, your adversary could claim it was a naturally occurring meteorite that hit you (assuming they didn't decide to take out multiple targets.)
Remember the mass driver research NASA did once upon a time about moon mining? It was basically a magnetic sled that could launch big rocks fast enough to escape lunar gravity. Mining was a cover story; nobody was really thinking about commercially feasible mining operations when they designed this. These were rocket scientists, not idiots. They were thinking about a moon base with a weapon system that could easily take out cities, military bases, aircraft carrier battle groups, you name it. It could do this with very little chance of the enemy spotting or impeding the incoming missiles and when they had done their work, there would be none of that nasty radioactivity you get with nuclear weapons.
Now that we know the real reason it was so important to get to the moon in the first place in the 1960s, realize that nothing has changed about the military strategic advantages of being there. Also realize that countries like China have figured this out and want to be there first.
Orion = $6 billion, never flew
SLS = spending at $1 billion/year, MIGHT fly by 2018-2021 and "projected to cost" $9 billion.
We can't even get a freaking new rocket in space for $10 billion.
Maybe $10 billion after we've spent everything else needed to make it happen. Or is this their way of waiving the white flag and saying that they think SpaceX could do it for $10 billion? Because that I would believe has a chance of happening.
Sounds like we just found an excuse to build a hyperloop! And by hyperloop I mean train with dust cover.
The psychological/inspirational aspect is important, but it's insanity to base an entire space program around that. Building a permanent moon base just as an exercise in "we can do it" is sheer insanity, and the He3 arguments pointedly ignore the lack of demand and cost-effectiveness. You know what happens when we build a moon base? We have a moon base. Until the next financial crisis comes around and congress cuts the funding. Build a giant white elephant and you get a giant white elephant that fiscal conservatives point to and laugh at for the next 100 years. Why not try and prove them wrong by actually venturing into new territory instead?
Focus instead on *new* tech, and you might actually get the spillover effects people on here keep talking about. And if you really want a challenge? Try building self-sustaining settlements in the arctic or antarctic, or in the middle of ordinary deserts. This is orders of magnitude simpler (and cheaper) than trying to build permanent settlements on other worlds, but it's still really hard.
You know, between Obama Care, and musk's EV push, lithium is now cheap and can help you.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Other than inspire a generation's interest in math, science and engineering?
That was one of the (few) justifications for the ISS. It didn't work. The kids were way more inspired by the robotic missions to Mars, which cost 1% as much, and actually engaged in real science.
$2 billion a year just to keep the doors open.
A rat done bit my sister Nell
With Whitey on the moon
Her face and arms began to swell
And Whitey's on the moon
I can't pay no doctor bills
But Whitey's on the moon
Ten years from now I'll be paying still
While whitey's on the moon
You know, the man just upped my rent last night
Cause whitey's on the moon
No hot water, no toilets, no lights
But whitey's on the moon
I wonder why he's uppin' me?
Cause whitey's on the moon?
Well i was already given him fifty a week
And now whitey's on the moon
Taxes takin' my whole damn check
The junkies make me a nervous wreck
The price of food is goin up
And if all that crap wasn't enough
A rat done bit my sister nell
With whitey on the moon
Her face and arm began to swell
And whitey's on the moon
- Gil Scott-Heron
A moon base would be a good spot to refine low gravity mining techniques that would easily transfer to asteroids. This would kick start orbital construction which is useful if you ever want to get further out than this single rock.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Other than inspire a generation's interest in math, science and engineering?
That was one of the (few) justifications for the ISS. It didn't work. The kids were way more inspired by the robotic missions to Mars, which cost 1% as much, and actually engaged in real science.
Earth orbit is not as inspiring as a person standing on another celestial body. Yes robotic missions are inspiring, but nothing compared to a manned mission. Speaking as someone starting elementary school immediately after Apollo 11.
The Curiosity rover project cost 2.5B, 25% as much as the proposed project.
A human with some tools can do a lot of science. And repair equipment, and deal with unforeseen things, and deal with things in real time, etc. How many rock and soil samples have robots brought back? Robots are not more capable, they are merely on site for longer periods of time.
Robots are a great tool, but they are plan B, a concession to costs or technological limits. And for Mars that concession seems a necessity at the moment. But if a moon mission with a little more endurance than previous missions can be done for $10B -- 4x Curiosity, 2/3x an Apollo mission, and possibly less than the mostly failed STEM encouraging projects the Congress will devise -- its probably worthwhile. Apollo probably eventually paid off in terms dual use tech and basic research. It spurred many technological developments.
Waste of lithium. Lead is plentiful.
And it's good that all our eggs are in the basket, because what's outside the basket is really freaking harsh.
Nah. People will go on to create advanced renewable power sources and universal constructors. Money will become obsolete and people will become so interlinked that it will change global society for the better. People will build colonies in space, on the moon and/or on Mars. Eventually a breakthrough will be made and people will be able to manipulate the fabric of space-time to fold space to anywhere in the universe instantly.
See, I can make stuff up too.
Earth orbit is not as inspiring as a person standing on another celestial body.
It is unlikely that kids are going to be inspired by someone doing something that people older than their great-grandparents already did 50 years ago.
The people asking for manned missions to the moon are not young people looking for inspiration, but geezers trying to relive their childhood.
There's no fiscally sound plan based on the world current supply/demand for asteroid mining. The $10 billion (and let's not pretend that this figure won't go WAY up due to unforeseen cost overruns) would be better spent developing, let's say, the fusion technology that would cause He3 to be in-demand.Or if we absolutely have to have manned space flight so that we can inspire people, let's focus on making a shuttle replacement (that doesn't suck) instead of re-inventing the Saturn V just so we can mothball it again in 10 years when the next economic meltdown happens.
In other words, while I am all for getting off of this rock, I am a little worried that simply re-visiting old nostalgia is going to 1. Not have as much impact as it did the first time around, in the 60s, 2. Not give us as much spillover technological advances, because it's shit we've done already, and 3. Give the fiscal conservatives more ammunition.
....we could spend another couple trillion dollars on wars of choice and bailing out greedy lying bankers.
You completely missed the point. Please reread what I'm saying. I'm saying that going to the moon is not as directly useful as many many other interesting things we could be doing that could also provide spinoff technologies. But those other things also have the benefit of solving a very specific problem. Mining asteroids is way down on the list of things we could be doing. That will make a palpable and immediate impact on millions of people's lives
1 year of costs for our war on terror we could build a moon base?
Dear god, as a species we just dont have our priorities straight. Let's let the middle east eat it's self and watch from the moon.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It is unlikely that kids are going to be inspired by someone doing something that people older than their great-grandparents already did 50 years ago. The people asking for manned missions to the moon are not young people looking for inspiration, but geezers trying to relive their childhood.
Easily disproven by the robotic missions to mars. The Viking robotic missions from the 1970s landed on Mars, took pictures, analyzed soil chemistry, searched for life. Sound familiar? Yep, much like the current rovers. And yet new generations are pretty damn interested despite the fact that geezers saw similar stuff in their teenage years.
The Apollo landings were also preceded by robotic mission, Surveyor, these tested surface soil and took pictures. Things the astronauts did a much better job at also. Plus the astronauts did some science the robots could not. For example removing the camera off of a surveyor lander they landed their lunar module "next to" and bringing the camera back to analyze how materials stood up to long time exposure on the lunar surface.
We can further disprove your notion with various "action sports". BMX, racing and freestyle, date back to the 1970s. Skateboarding in its more modern freestyle incarnation (vertical walls, tricks, etc), 70s. Snowboarding, 70s. Surfing in its more modern shortboard incarnations, 60s. Kids seem to enjoy some things their parents and grandparents also enjoyed.
Your past science is a little poor. Heard of symmetry breaking? And your current "geography" is poor. If you can do tech and live and reproduce out as far as Pluto then the stars are trivial. The thing is we believe the Oort cloud extends out 10 Petra meters. If in fact that is a low ball number and the real number is near 50 petrameters then people will just keep moving out when they see the neighbors are too close. They will go all the way to alpha centuri and not even particularly notice they have done so. It would take a bit of time though.
Half a trillion, minimum.
"Fusion won't work. Fission is on the way out. Fossils are running out. Renewables won't be enough."
- Fusion already works, the problem today is basically just building big enough reactors to achieve commercial energy production.
- Fission will always be possible. Its only fools like you who tell people its dangerous and panic them like flocks of chickens that hold it back. Fission is 1000 times safer than coal - basic fact.
- Unfortunately fossil fuels are not running out, in fact there are enough of them to run the world for hundreds of years. - Its climate change that will get us first long before fossil fuels run out..
- Renewables are half a good idea and half garbage - the whole problem is that the whole system is run by people with no real grasp of the science - we need more scientists not less..
"Humans have been living for thousands of years without the technological craze and will go on living for more thousands of years when the technological craze has passed."
I have got bad news for you buddy, humans have got a natural expiration date. We live on a moral plane that is incompatible with evolution and its slowly killing us, and genetically we were already heading for a dead end..
We will survive though and you know what will save us? science and advanced genetic engineering.
The natural method you favour only works if you can 'achieve' a 50% plus child mortality rate. Doesn't that make you feel like an insect for attacking science?
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
Take the money of a single year of the war in Iraq - 120 billion dollars. Now you have enough money to send men to the Moon, the asteroids, Mars, and Venus..
Its all about priorities - is a pointless war against someone who wasn't even a real enemy more important than humanity having a future in space? The problem is that we've allowed our politicians to become inbred and stupid, its time to replace them with something better.
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
The US pays over twice as much to maintain the Interstate system....each year!
??? The moon already has a vacuum, and there's no dust in the air because there isn't air.
How are you going to get those spinoff benefits and discoveries without actually doing work in space, and just sitting around here and funding social programs? You're not. The Apollo program yielded enormous economic benefits for the US due to the new technologies created; those would not have happened if we just increased teacher pay.
I'm not saying social programs and teacher pay increases shouldn't be done, but if you want actual advancement in technology, you have to actually do things which require that advancement. You can't just wait until all social problems are cured. That isn't going to happen for generations.
Well, we shouldn't have to be pitting teacher pay/social programs/etc.. against space exploration anyway (first off, teacher pay isn't in the same money bucket as NASA, they do not compete). Not when the sum total of all social programs, minus the core programs that no one will ever seriously think about getting rid of (social security, medicare), are peanuts compared to the Defense budget.
(first off, teacher pay isn't in the same money bucket as NASA, they do not compete).
This is totally incorrect. They're all part of the overall government budget. Yes, a lot of funding for schools is at local levels, but not all. And there's plenty of politicians who would love to eliminate one or the other, or better yet both, and use the savings to pay for tax cuts for the rich or for more bloated defense programs.
I am looking at this:
http://www.aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Policy_and_Advocacy/files/SchoolBudgetBriefFINAL.pdf
Percent distribution of revenues for public elementary and secondary education 2006-07.
Federal was 8.5%, local and state made up the rest.
Graph 7 shows another chart by state. The highest that comes from the Fed is 18% and the lowest is 4.5%.
Am I missing something?
I think you're missing that that's still a bunch of money coming from the Federal government, even if it is a minority of their overall funding. The Republicans would just love to eliminate that expenditure altogether, and move it to the defense budget (even if it is puny in comparison already).