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."

Weight? Moon?

That's easy. It'll weight 1/6 of what it does on Earth.

Re:

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

Re:

They need to be careful and be sure the Rebels don't get ahold of those plans.

After all, that's no moon.

This is no laughing matter

How about you start treating this subject with the gravity it deserves?

About time

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.

Charge it!

Bugger the costs, just charge it: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ [brillig.com]

Re:

If you think health care system spending is too high, you are probably under the mistaken idea that it's all for other people, and you'll never need to use the system yourself. I don't think you'll find anyone (sane) in an emergency room that wants to sig

Re:

The health care spending is too high because the US gets less for what they spend compared to many other developed countries.

For instance: why do US people need to pay so much for health care/insurance if the Gov is already spending tons on it?

Re:

Mod parent up. The previous posts are confused because they include social security and medicare into the national budget (read the link in the parent comment to learn why this is important).

Re:

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).

The problem with your theory is that the Chinese aren't doing it

Re:

What I'd still rather see though, is human exploration being conducted on an "as needed" basis.

We've been doing that for 35 years, and it's worked quite well. There is no need to go to the moon, and so we haven't gone.

If people want to fund a joy-rid

a military angle?

For this topic I'm lacking in detail and references, but I seem to recall from when Bush first started talking about putting people on Mars via the moon, there was some talk about his vision of a new direction for Nasa not being so much in the interest of

Job #1: Making people give a damn.

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.

Re:

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 anoth

Need a continuous series of 'firsts.'

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 con

Re:

We want to set foot on the moon again, because the moon is the ultimate high ground.

It's much harder to track a chunk of rock on a ballistic course than it is to track a missile, and no power supply is required, a simple mass driver on the moon and some de

Re:

We could have just stayed in a cave and howled against the full moon.

It's pretty cheap getting to the moon and there are always hyperspace bypasses to worry about.

Wensleydale? Gorgonzola?

Tastes like no chees I've ever tasted.

Wallace and Gromit!! Mod GP funny, damn it!

I don't know about "against", but certainly "ignorant of" qualifies. Let's face it. As high as the quality of W&G animation is, they're not exactly on the high priority list of DVDs for geeks to watch. But, yes, it's completely relevant

Hey, ignor

NASCAR Lunar Track...

We need two Humvee-sized rovers exploring the moon that are visible with the naked eye from Earth. That should keep people interested in the moon as they watch the rovers bounced around the craters until NASCAR builds out a race track up there.

hmm..

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.

Re:

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.

Is that here or on the Moon? Wait, do we still call it 24lb paper if we're buying it on a lunar base?

ummm yeah

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:

http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Boar d=businesstech&Number=503952&page=&view=&sb=&o= [space.com]

Josh

Re:

The real action is going to be on Phobos and Mars, in that order.

The real action is going to be on Deimos [space.com] and Mars, in that order.

Re:

You need more than "the presence of water" to make for "the next New York City." An environment wildly hostile to human life, and devoid of the myriad of elements necessary for a sustainable friendly eco-system, is not going to support anything more than

Re:

The real action is going to be on Phobos and Mars, in that order.

If I remember correctly, the real action was on Phobos and in Hell, in that order.

What NASA really needs...

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.

Re:What NASA really needs...

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.

That may have happened in some alternate universe - but in this one, the plans are in a variety of archives.

Skip Mars

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.

Good that its being done now vs later

Personally, its good that this is being done now than later, because otherwise I don't see it getting brought up again for like 10 or 20 years.

1. Set the groundwork, infrastructure, protocols, etc now, because I kinda wonder how much of the documentation o

Two flights planned

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

Doing things in a wrong order

It is somewhat illogical, in the difficult time of allocating funding in science, to make a decision to revisit the Moon first and then to discuss the justification for this new technological/scientific endeavor.

This is almost like a por-barrel project for

Money?

I'd think that would be item #1 on the list. NASA needs cash. It's impossible to do R&D without the scratch to back it up. If we were putting a fraction of the money into NASA that we are into other things (*cough* Iraq *cough*) we'd be able to get to the moon today.

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.

Re:Money?

Yeah nearly half a trillion dollars a year on Iraq and Afghanistan vs. what 16-17 billion for all of the NASA projects? This isn't just Project Orion it's also all the aeronautical research as well as various space science related work. How friggin' nuts is that? Roughly thirty times as much money spent to kill innocent people as to expand the horizons of the entire human race. Oh well there's always Russia and China for all that good stuff.

exit

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.

Re:

Well, according to Gore, if you study well in school then you will not get stuck on the Moon.

why is it?

Why is it that whenever anyones says "... Bush's vision ..." I think of crayons, preschool and cirlces of paper?

Re:

I think of crayons, preschool and cirlces of paper?

But not spelling tests, right?

But...

Why does America want to explore the Moon? It seems stupid when China is already going to do it - there is no need for America to go there. Or something like that. At least, that is the agument we always hear when there is talk about China, Europe or Russi

It's the galaxy, stupid

>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!

Let's let the private sector explore space.

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!

Re:

At this stage in development, the risks for private industry in actual space exploration are incredible. Why would any sane business want to take that risk when there are plenty of defense contracts for perfectly good weapons of mass destruction?

No, Natio

Re:

Halliburton in space - what an excellent idea!

Taking Up Space

Is it a coincidence that NASA announced a major mission sorely lacking in Bush's "vision" for our space program only a week after Bush lost control of Congress? And therefore most of his control of the space program that Congress defines, and Bush just get

Why is Bush interested?

There's no oil on the moon as far as I know...

Re:

I used to be in the USAF a few years ago... in some of the basic training mess halls at Lackland AFB they have some rather incrediable paintings of what the USAF was going to be doing in space - millitarizing it for US interests of course. This whole space

Re:

Romaaji de kaku no ga, gomen nasai ga, kyomi wo motte ori, surashudotto ni nihon moji de kakemasen. Hontou ni sono kaisha de hataraite irasshaimasu ka. Yahari, kono chotto dake no nihongo wo rikai shite iru no wa tashika na shoumei dewa nai desuga, kore sa

Re:NASA weighs moon plans

I think its because its been putting on a few pounds. [cnn.com]

Re:

No, no, you got it wrong. They're weighing the moon plans. I mean ... really ... do blueprints weight that much that they need to be weighed?? :)

Re:

(1) probably
(2) yes it will be sad