Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Moon Science

Back to Moon in 2015? 697

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i'll-believe-it-when-the-rocks-are-at-the-smithsonian dept.
Mistress.Erin writes "NASA has announced they may send astronauts back to the moon as early as 2015, and may build an international base once they get there. From TFA:"The next mission to land a man on the moon will take place in 2015 at the earliest, the new chief of the United States' space program said on Monday, adding the mission could be followed by the construction of a multinational space station there. But NASA has not yet decided what vehicles will be used to reach the moon, or what will succeed the aging space shuttle fleet, which is due to be retired in 2010.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Back to Moon in 2015? More

Back to Moon in 2015?

Comments Filter:
  • But NASA has not yet decided what vehicles will be used to reach the moon...


    There's a giant Big Boy statue down the road you can use...

  • I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Enigma_Man ( 756516 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:46AM (#12822736) Homepage
    Why the moon? Well, I suppose it's basically in our backyard, and for interstellar toddlers, it's a pretty good goal to start. Today the moon, tomorrow the universe, eh?

    But still, is there anything on the moon that we can use/do that would be cool, other than just developing the technology used to get there?

    -Jesse

    • Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but... (Score:5, Funny)

      by savagedome ( 742194 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:48AM (#12822753)
      But still, is there anything on the moon that we can use/do that would be cool

      The coolest thing would be that everyone can do the moonwalk. Awesome!

    • Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but... (Score:5, Funny)

      by VikingDBA ( 446387 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:48AM (#12822755)
      "Today the moon, tomorrow the universe"

      Or

      Today the Moon, 45 years from now the Moon again...
    • I would imagine experiments on how low gravity (not weightlessness) affects plants and humans would prove useful. And perhaps they can produce fuel of some sort there and use it as a base for launching missions further into space.

      And ofcourse it will be a nice place to train for NASA's competitors. Practice landing on the moon and then you can go to other planets/moons. :-)

    • Because the moon doesn't have such a high gravity as let's say earth. This makes it easier to assemble and launch any vehicle that may be sent to Mars.

    • Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BridgeBum ( 11413 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:57AM (#12822850)
      If they are talking about working on a permanent base, why wouldn't you want to start with the moon? Any sort of extra-terrestrial base, be it a space station, moon base or planetary colony - is going to require a lot of supplies from Earth on a regular basis. The proximity to Earth is a big plus here.

      If things go well and a Luna base becomes well established, it becomes a much easier launching pad to form other bases/colonies elsewhere. The gravity well on the moon makes regular launches much less cost prohibitive.
    • Why the moon?

      Babysteps. Since the 1960s we've lost the capability to send anything large on an interplanetary cruise. In fact, we shelved most of the technologies that would allow us to perform such cruises quickly and efficiently. As a result, we need to rebuild our space infrastrucutre. Part of that rebuilding is an inexpensive method for getting to and from the moon. CEV Spiral two will most likely use nuclear engines for moving passengers to and from the moon. As we gain real world experience with those engines, we can begin contemplating the task of sending a manned mission to Mars.

      The key thing to remember about the current CEV program is that it's built on real technology we have today. This is a big change for NASA which has always expected some sort of miracle technology for their next vehicle. The bright side of this change is that we'll have the CEV completed in a relatively short period of time, and it will cost a reasonable amount compared to the $$$ that went into the Shuttle program.
      • I was under the impression that the reason we don't currently have nuclear outfitted space technology (not counting decay powered satelites i.e voyager) was that if the Challenger/Columbia thing happens again it sprays the planet with refined nuclear material.

        Aside from that how exactly would you use a technology that doesn't rely on combustion to produce the needed thrust to enter orbit.

        Not saying that it couldn't be done but it seems like it would still be easier to burn something to get into orbit.
        • I was under the impression that the reason we don't currently have nuclear outfitted space technology (not counting decay powered satelites i.e voyager) was that if the Challenger/Columbia thing happens again it sprays the planet with refined nuclear material.

          That impression is quite wrong. Nuclear technology has not been used because:

          1. It hasn't met the mission profiles. (It was even considered for the Shuttle upper stages.)
          2. People are afraid of nuclear.

          In the case of CEV Spiral Two, the engines would be used for pure orbital work, so there would be little to no concern of any materials reaching Earth.

          If anyone knows of a way to get thrust from fission I'd love to hear it.

          Man, I thought I'd gotten everyone around here trained in how Nuclear Thermal Rockets [wikipedia.org] work. Here's the short of it:

          Most nuclear reactors derive their power production from the thermal aspect of the reaction. As the core heats up, the heat is pumped into a generator where a turbine is turned. During the push to reach the moon, some enterprising engineers figured that if you could heat a propellant using a nuclear reactor, you could dump as much thermal energy into a working fluid as the materials could withstand. The result is that massive amounts of thrust can be obtained by simply heating a stream of hydrogen, oxygen, or even plain old air. (See: Project Pluto [wikipedia.org]; rather nasty weapon that was.) Since hydrogen and oxygen can't become radioactive, there would be little issue of spreading nuclear materials. Unfortunately, there was a Graphite Ablation problem from the heat, but the modern TRITON engine [nuclearspace.com] fixes that by utilizing Tungsten cladding.

          Does that answer your question?
      • The CEV is both a step back and a step forward.

        Its an idealogical step back from the shuttle. Becoming more of a "do all disposable" similar to the ever reliable Appolo hardware that was quickly adapted to 3 totaly different sets of missions with little effort. Leaving us without a "Jack of all trades" craft such as the space shuttle, able to do crew and cargo on the one vehicle and function as a remote scientific research platform yet very difficult to change or retrofit for a very different task.

        It is a

    • Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by It doesn't come easy ( 695416 ) * on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @10:01AM (#12822891) Journal
      If the moon was developed as a jumping off point for Earth, exploration of the system would be much much cheaper than it is today (especially for the outer planets). That is because the Moon could build all of the space hardware and refine the fuel so we would not have to lift that mass out of the Earth's gravitational well. Plus, the Moon would be a much better location to train astronauts (lower gravity and easier access to no grav conditions). And, it would be a much cheaper source of some very expensive stuff on Earth, such as helium 3 [space.com].

      It is a shame that we've waited this long to even consider it.
    • Well, if we are ever planning on building a space infrastructure, do you happen to know of any place closer to Earth that has 10^19 tons of building material that doesn't cost $1000/lb to put into space?

      At current technology levels, that makes the moon's mass worth on the order of $10^25, or ten trillion trillion dollars. Cool, eh?

      Personally, I think we ought to develop cheaper means of getting into orbit before we try anything really ambitious in space. But if we are going to use our current chemical r
      • Personally, I think we ought to develop cheaper means of getting into orbit before we try anything really ambitious in space.

        If the last 30 years have proven anything, it's that space access is a chicken and egg problem. You won't get competition for cheaper vehicles until you have a market for those vehicles. Yet you can't create the market without having cheap space access. The Space Shuttle actually drove UP launch costs instead of realizing the promised launch savings! That's why the Delta and Atlas r
    • Well first off we can put a base on it and still be in good comunication latency to talk to earth if a problem occures. So we can get the process of building space stations on extraterestral objects. Secondly it would be great for astronomy having a lot of area to place telescopes of differnt types and size without having to worry about it staying in orbit. Just learning how to live on non-earth. depending on the raw matereals we find on the moon we can make a spaceship factory there without all the polut

    • Re:I'm all for science/technology/astronomy but... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by everphilski ( 877346 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @10:08AM (#12822954) Journal
      There is a saying, get to low earth orbit and you are halfway to ANYWHERE in the galaxy. It's true. The velocity requirement (delta-v) to hit low earth orbit is about 7.6 km/sec. It's actually a little more than that when you consider you are fighting gravity the whole way up, and drag, but once you are in low earth orbit you are going 7.6 km/sec. Escape velocity from earth is about 13 km/sec. At 13 km/sec you can point your rocket any sane direction and just coast to where you want to go.

      Building a base on the moon is similar to that. It takes a little more delta-V to get to the moon. Don't have my notes in front of me, think its on the order of 11km/sec. But leaving the moon is only like 2-3 km/sec ... to escape. Slightly more delta-V than from LEO, you lose a little by landing on a moon, you now have to fight it's gravity well, but you gain something - solid ground. It's nice to be able to have a lab to work in. To be able to stand. That's one potential line of thinking for a moon base. And it's a valid one. There's also moon resources. Silicon, metals. Tons of oxygen in the regolith (moon rocks). If we can figure out how to get it out. There's actually a contest sponsored by NASA with a cash prize to do exactly that.

      My opinion? Rendezvous in LEO and shoot from there. Screw the moon. But that's just me. I like the brute force method.

      -Philski-
    • Of course, the moon has lots of metal ores. If we can build refining plants and factories, space ships can be launched much cheaper. Sure you have to still get the people up there, but you save a lot when you don't have to lag tons of equipment into space. Hopefully we can even find some way to produce oxygen, unless we can find water in the moon, thats going to be the hardest part.
  • ... they should actually get to the moon by 2025-2030.

  • Great if applied to other things. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Quasar1999 ( 520073 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:47AM (#12822746) Journal
    I've also decided to go on a huge roadtrip in 2015, but I too have no idea how I'll get there... Nor do I know what I'm going to do with my current vehicle (a 1975 Honda civic) once it is scheduled to be retired (2010 at the latest). But don't you worry, I'll manage to pull it off somehow... ;)

    • Re:Great if applied to other things. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bombadillo ( 706765 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @12:49PM (#12824549)
      You forgot to add that you will fund the roadtrip with the spare change you manage to find.

      This will never hapen in 10 years time with the current funding and emphasize placed on the space program. NASA simply won't get the money needed to get to the moon. It's only ment as a distraction from Iraq and to give the country something to rally behind. This way the conservative media can have talking points about what a visionary president we have. Bush seems really pre-occupied with creating a legacy. Taking on Social Security, The largest nation building exercise since WWII (Iraq), Return to the moon, Star Wars... So far his legacy isn't looking very good. Unfortunately , we will be the ones paying for his poorly managed projects.

      What ever you do don't concentrate on Iraq.

  • Then & Now (Score:5, Interesting)

    by earthbound kid ( 859282 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:47AM (#12822747) Homepage
    Kennedy: "We will go to the moon in this decade..."

    NASA today: "We will go to the moon in this decade... at the earliest. Maybe. But hey, don't hold your breath."

    For real, how can it possibly take longer to do it again, if we already did it before? The R&D phase is over. We know what to do.

    1) Build Saturn V
    2) Put spaceship on top
    3) MTV Flag

    What, did we lose the Saturn blueprint or something?

    • Re:Then & Now (Score:2, Informative)

      by Ironsides ( 739422 )
      Saturn 5 was good only for putting a man on the moon and returning him home. Effectively Zero payload capacity for pretty much anything else. As a technology, it's a dead end and not good for anything else.

      • Re:Then & Now (Score:5, Informative)

        by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <akaimbatman AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @10:11AM (#12822976) Homepage Journal
        Not true. The Saturn V was a superb super-booster that was capable of lifting just about anything into orbit. For example, a Saturn V was used to lift the entire Skylab Space Station [wikipedia.org] in one flight. Von Braun was also a big proponent of using a Saturn V to lift a Mini Orion [wikipedia.org] into orbit for interplanetary travel.

        The reason why the Saturn V *seems* useless is that the primary focus of the Apollo and Gemini programs was to develop the technology and execute a plan to reach the moon. If the Saturn V was still flying today, you can bet it wouldn't cost several billion dollars to get the ISS up there. We'd launch the stupid thing in two or three pieces, only minor assembly required. Compare that to the dozens of shuttle flights and Russian launches necessary to get the current structure up there. And it's not even done!

        • Re:Then & Now (Score:3, Insightful)

          by csoto ( 220540 )
          The Russians already sent up the "big pieces" in expendable boosters (similar to the Saturn V). The Shuttle was incapable of lifting some primary components, such as the Zvezda service module (delivered by Proton rocket), and of course, people and supplies (Progress and Soyuz).

          The Shuttle is a clever system, and it still has uses, but we put too many eggs in that basket. We should have been developing every possible alternative. Instead, we find ourselves indebted to the Russians for our continued prese
    • For real, how can it possibly take longer to do it again, if we already did it before?

      Or did we? [google.com] Sorry, couldn't resist :D

    • Re:Then & Now (Score:2, Informative)

      by torpor ( 458 )
      What, did we lose the Saturn blueprint or something?

      No. Urban Legend. The plans are still on microfilm .. though whether they're useful is a different story..
    • "What, did we lose the Saturn blueprint or something?"
      No but most of the parts are no longer available. Things like specific nuts, bolts, gaskets, and electronics.
      Also the blue prints are not cad drawings they are microfilm. So if where where going to build a new Saturn it really would be a new Saturn. It would have to be an almost complete new design.
      Next is MONEY. The US just does not want to spend the kind of money it would take for a "crash" program. During the Apollo days many good programs where cance

    • The Difference (Score:2, Interesting)

      by everphilski ( 877346 )
      Kennedy had a goal - showing that good old American capitalism could beat Russian communism. That principle was worth hiring on thousands of engineers and accelerating plans that already were in place to be met by the end of the decade. Not to mention throwing billions at the problem.

      Nowadays we don't have anything to prove. There's no motivation other than science. We can't reuse the Saturn V. Remember what the Saturn V put on the moon? A little tin foil lander, and a small buggy of a car. Not much effec
    • The 1960's moon program was a (relatively) quick and dirty, politically motivated response to the USSR's efforts. We need to do it a hell of a lot smarter than that this time around. The push to a permanent moon base has to have self sustainability as one of it's primary goals (we can't afford to supply a moon base from Earth and I for one would not want to depend on a politician's whim to send me the air I need to breath). Self sustainability is much harder than simply visiting the moon.

    • Re:Then & Now (Score:5, Informative)

      by stlhawkeye ( 868951 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @10:32AM (#12823186) Homepage Journal
      What, did we lose the Saturn blueprint or something?

      The Saturn V wasn't the only piece of technology we used. There's also the landing vehicle, the lunar orbitor, etc. We don't have any of those things laying around and the people, facilities, and processes involved in engineering them are dead, retired, or demolished. Kennedy's moon mission was just about getting there and bank so we could thumb our noses at the Soviet Union. Neener neener neener. If we go again, the mission is different. This time it's about conducting science and testing vehicles and technologies for taking us to Mars and beyond.

      Kennedy's moon landings were a stunt for international bragging rights. If that's the only reason we wanted to go again, it'd be much easier. Also, we know much more about the hazards of space travel now, and have to re-engineer ships to deal with it. The attitude of this nation is MUCH different now than it was in 1960. Government regulations are far stricter, and the loss of crew is less acceptable (not that people ever ACCEPTED the loss of a crew but the flak NASA catches for it now is far worse than what they got 40 years ago).

      Computer technology is different and probably incompatible with the hardware systems of those old monsters, and the launch facilities in Florida aren't big enough to launch a Sat-V anyway (they never were, either, the Sat-V had to be rolled out with its own tower).

      So you can't just rebuild everything, it's not that simple.

  • politics on the moon (Score:3, Interesting)

    by moz25 ( 262020 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:48AM (#12822759) Homepage
    I've always wondered what kind of political issues could arise from sending people to new territories. After all, who owns the land of other planets? It seems that the moon is politically stable because it's really hard and expensive to actually settle a large portion of the land. It's good to see that these projects to some extent don't push national boundaries all the way into space.
    • "After all, who owns the land of other planets?"

      Right now, no one. Keep in mind that no one really "owns" anything. You own something to the extent that you can excert your force and defend something. Take a look at airspace. When the Soviets shot down a U2 spyplane from umpteen thousands of feet, they owned that airspace at that point.

      When it comes to real estate, such as your house, you don't own the land...you own "rights" to the land (ie fee simple, leasehold, tenants-in-common) granted by the gov
    • Politically and treaty-wise (not that W has much use for treaties) the moon and other extra-terrestrial bodies exist in the same legal space as Antartica. In Antartica, on the Moon, on Mars, on Ceres, on Pluto, on the recently discovered rocky planet orbiting Gliese 876 [slashdot.org], etc. is international domain. Scientific missions can be hosted there, permanent bases for said scientific missions can be founded there, but military infrastructure is not allowed, no-one can annex it as a territory

  • What will replace the space shuttle fleet? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lester67 ( 218549 ) <`ratels72082' `at' `mypacks.net'> on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:49AM (#12822766)
    CONTRACTORS!

    Seriously. I recently returned from a tour in the middle east. Damn near everything is contracted out: food, showers, embarkation/debarkation. With an increasing number of viable "space" start-ups, it isn't hard to imagine that NASA hasn't announced a shuttle replacement because they're waiting for these guys (or gals) to come up with a cheap alternative that they can purchase time on.

    You eliminate a large chunk of the paperwork when a sig on the dotted line passes the logistics to someone else.

  • Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gclef ( 96311 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:50AM (#12822783)
    Though it pains me to ask this (I'd love for us to be doing more space exploration), is building a base there really a good idea? From what I've read, the lunar dust is incredibly hard on mechanical things (gears, seals, etc)...that would make maintenance of any lunar base very difficult, and prohibitively expensive.

    For all of that effort (both in the initial build, and in the launch/materials costs for maintenance)...what do we get? Not much, even in terms of science.

    I'd love for us to do more space exploration, but honestly, I think a really big station at L4 or L5 would be a much better idea. Locally stable gravitiational point, but not a deep gravity well, far less dust, very low g environment, etc.

    It's not as sexy as the moon, but really...L5's the place to be, not the moon.

    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:56AM (#12822837)


      L5 is an excellent place to build...but you need something to build with. The moon is ideal for harvesting raw materials, due to its shallow gravity well and lack of atmosphere.

      • From Gundam Wing (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Ironsides ( 739422 )
        1) Put a manufacturing base on the moon.
        2) Build solar powered launch catapult.
        3) Build space station.
      • But, again, you need the machines to do the mining. I'm not convinced yet that we'll be able to get enough materials out of the moon to make any base mechanically self-sufficient...I think the dust will tear up any mining machinery faster than it will be able to provide any base with replacement parts. In that situation, the moon is no better than L5...there may be materials there, but we can't get them out easily.

        (Note: I admit that I'm extrapolating from just a few facts, but given the state of the lun

        • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by JJ ( 29711 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @10:34AM (#12823217) Homepage Journal
          If by mechanically self-sufficient you mean never needing replacement parts then no, no moonbase can be made so. I think you severely overestimate the destructiveness of the dust though. With no atmosphere, the most destructive aspect of the dust will be missing, it's wind driven penetration ability. Also with a fairly constant dust particle size adequate filtration systems are not too dificult, the lunar rover had virtually none. As to tearing up the mining machinery, as long as it is designed for space usage, the moon dust really isn't a major issue. In hard rock mining here, the problems of equipment failure depend much more on heat and ventilation than dust.
          The most dust sensitive articles left on the moon (small mirrors for laser reflection) are still working just fine more than 30 years since a last de-dusting was possible.

          • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by gclef ( 96311 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @11:35AM (#12823835)
            Have a look at
            http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2005/TM-2005-213 610.pdf [nasa.gov]

            One of the surprises of the Apollo experience was how troublesome the lunar dust turned out to be. It obscured their vision on landing, clogged mechanisms, abraded the Extravehicular Mobility Suits (EMS), scratched the instrument covers, degraded the performance of radiators, compromised seals, irritated their eyes and lungs, and generally coated everything with surprising tenacity. Some of the EMS components were approaching failure at the end of these missions, which ranged from 21 to 75 hr on the lunar surface.


            Also, the dust is far from a constant size, and is far more abrasive than you'll find here on earth, due to a lack of erosion mechanisms on the moon.

            • Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

              by JJ ( 29711 )
              I worked with a bunch of Apollo veterans. They all told me the dust was surprising and annoying but that it was only because it was a surprise that it caused problems. Keep in mind everything was being done right smack dab in the center of the dust field kicked up by the lander. With no wind, no dispersal; just straight up, straight down.
              The Viking probes to Mars, which were designed/ operated in only a slightly later time frame had no such major troubles because they expected and acted on the dust. Mars is
    • Let me get this straight, NASA, along with the other nation-state space agencies who still can't get the International Space Station to work correctly or a regular shuttle service, now going to:

      1) Develop a vehicle to get stuff back and forth from the moon, and
      2) Put a permanent base on the moon?

      Jehoozatz, if they can't do it in Earth orbit, how are they going to do it on the moon?

    • Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dread_ed ( 260158 )
      "the lunar dust is incredibly hard on mechanical things "

      One of the great things about the moon is the lack of atmosphere. This means that when you move dust away from a place it will not return easily.

      Sweepers, vacuums, or (GASP!) explosives could be used to remove the dust from a proposed build site. No more dust and no wind to bring it back!

      Personally I think that he explosive idea is the best as any mechanical device would be subject to the same abbrasive damage that your proposed installation wou
  • USA to China: "Anak...err China, It's over, I've secured the higher ground."
  • So does this mean they will have a "space station" in orbit around the moon? Or ar they talking moon base. Or was the phrase "space station a mistake?"

  • We better invite the Russians (Score:3, Interesting)

    by csoto ( 220540 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:51AM (#12822798)
    They have the only heavy lift vehicles in continuous development and operation that could make this happen. We already use their liquid fuel motors (Boeing and LockMart both licensed Russian motors in their rockets).

  • Erm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:52AM (#12822807) Homepage
    To paraphrase
    We don't know how we're going to get there or do what we want to do once we get there, but by god, we're going.

    Great., NASA is run by PHBs.

  • again, why (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DerKwisatzHaderach ( 881451 )
    I advocate developing space travel technology as well as building bases on Mars, but the Moon? really, we went there in the 60's and 70's, saw that there was nothing too worthhile there, and left. I just don't see the point. Maybe someone could explain to me what we could benfit from.

    • Publicity Stunt (Score:2, Insightful)

      by everphilski ( 877346 )
      Going to the moon in the 70's was nothing more than a publicity stunt. Kennedy didn't give a f*ck about science. All he cared about was showing up the russians. Yes we got some science out of it, but not nearly as much as the NASA guys wanted to get. The Apollo program was cut short after we knew the point was brought home to Russia. We had 3 more Saturn V rockets sitting, waiting to be used. All we needed to do was fill 'em up and let 'em rip. But they cancelled the program. R&D >>> support st
  • So they've decided they will probably go to the moon 10-15 years from now, may or may not build something there, and have no idea how they're going to get there. Doesn't exactly inspire and encourage like the Kennedy declaration did, does it? It's too bad the public has lost most of its romantic view of space travel. What most people don't realize is that money invested in space exploration usually results in inventions that can be applied here on earth. While I think it's a good thing that Bush is push

  • Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:53AM (#12822813)

    Seriously. Why?

    NOTE:"because", "because it's there", "human curiosity/wonder", and other such pie-in-the-sky BS will not wash. Justifying the billions with "hey, look, we ended up with velcro last time" also doesn't cut it. Nor does "lots of people will be employed with those billions". I'm looking for clear, useful results; not pie-in-the-sky philosophical goodies and promises worthy of a campaign speech. It's a goddamn ROCK and I want to know why we should pay a LOT of money to send a bunch of egotistical people there.

    I challenge thee, Space Fanboys of Slashdot.

    • Why eh? Ill take a stab at a troll..

      To learn how to make things that will work in space, to learn how to deal with the effects of long term spaceflight, and how to determine materials for worthiness.

      Example: Neptune happens to be made from compound similar to natural gas. Would it be viable to have automated spaceflights to gather for "free energy" pas the cost of the rockets used? Having a gaseous planet provide limitless energy is a 'nice incentive'.

      Also getting off of the single gravity well we exist

      • Why eh? Ill take a stab at a troll..

        I'm soliciting viewpoints. Not trolling. I'm dead serious. There's a difference, and dismissing me as a troll doesn't invalidate the question.

        To learn how to make things that will work in space, to learn how to deal with the effects of long term spaceflight, and how to determine materials for worthiness.

        What of the previous moon trip, Skylab, the russian station, ISS, the Shuttle missions?

    • I want to know why we should pay a LOT of money to send a bunch of egotistical people there

      Short answer, we shouldn't. Hear me out...I think we should spend a lot of money sending people with Low Self esteem there. Also, the process should be incomplete. Let them figure it out, let them finance it. It will give them confidence. Then we will show the world who has the "right stuff"

    • NOTE:"because", "because it's there", "human curiosity/wonder", and other such pie-in-the-sky BS will not wash.

      Well first answer me then we humans should do anything we do.

      We can just sit around and wait until we die, or we could actually have goals as a species. One such goal would be to settle land away from this planet, and settling the moon is a clear useful result towards that goal.

    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @10:21AM (#12823087) Homepage Journal
      There are some serious answers, but they're all long-term. Pretty much everyone can see the benefit in having a solar-system-wide civilization, I think, but we have to do things one step at a time.

      Off the top of my head ...

      - Manufacturing and heavy industry should really be moved off Earth; low-g doesn't offer quite the same cool possibilities that zero-g (okay, microgravity) does, but it's still possible to build things cheaper (locally) the less they weigh; more generally, pollution is less of a concern because, you know, the Moon has no air, no water, and no life. You can dump stuff in an empty crater and it either sits there if it's heavy, or sublimes off into space if it's light. And, of course, there's plentiful solar power.

      - Various types of medicine and surgery, again, would benefit tremendously from low-g. Of course, for this to work, you have to find a way to move sick people off Earth that doesn't involve the crushing g-forces of current space flight ... Eventually, I can see the Moon becoming a giant retirement colony, a kind of mega-Florida for old people who want to live out their days in comfort.

      - Astronomy: the far side is just about the best possible place to build telescopes. Yes, better than L-5, because (again) the gravity is light enough to allow huge delicate structures, but it's still a planet, and building a long-term support base with local materials is a lot easier than hauling everything off into the middle of nowhere.

      - Way station for future voyages. Other posters have mentioned the relative ease of building and launching interplanetary spacecraft on the Moon as opposed to Earth. Here's another benefit: the Moon has the lowest gravity of any place people are likely to live, which means that not only could visitors from Earth go there and be comfortable, so could those from Mars, the Jovian and Saturnian moons, etc. I can easily see the Moon becoming the Solar System's busiest hub for trade, diplomacy, and tourism.

  • More public interest for Moon instead of ISS? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by OnTheWay ( 529387 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:55AM (#12822830)
    I think the average person would be more supportive of a moon base (once it was there) compared to the ISS simple because the moon base is located in a physical, identifiable, and visible location. Everyone can see the Moon and think about it and wonder about it. The ISS, on the other hand, is literally in nowhere. Also, the residents seem to be basically stuck in a can. With a Moon base, one can go out for walk and go exploring. I think subconsciously there's a greater appeal to that idea than for that of the ISS.
  • But isn't this alot like saying "We'll return to the moon in the next 10 minutes, at the earliest" ?

  • Scientific American (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DanielMarkham ( 765899 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:55AM (#12822835) Homepage
    This month Scientific American ran an editorial about the new space goals. Their basic thrust was to cut the shuttle and space station, leave the science alone, and then you'd still have enough for the moon mission.

    I've got mixed feelings about that viewpoint. I can't help but think the real problem is an aging, risk-adverse bureaucracy and fragmented goals. It's easy to argue all day about what is important or not. Personally, I'd like to see cost-to-orbit decreased by new technology. To me that should be the major national goal. Then the rest of these questions (which are really about money) would not be so pressing. But perhaps that is fixing the long-term problem instead of bickering over budgets today. And heck, that's no fun!

  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by j-cloth ( 862412 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @09:59AM (#12822874)
    While I am hugely dissapointed that I'm not currently living on the lunar colony that was promised to me when I was 8, I really don't see the point in this.

    This whole "To the moon" thing reeks of nothing more than a plan by our good buddy Jr. Bush to:
    a) Distract everybody from the fact that his economy is crumbling and he's not doing so well in a very unpopular war, and
    b) Develop an excuse to justify the weaponization of space.

    Mod me flamebait, but all political discussions are flame wars and this announcement is way more about politics than it is about science.

  • Misplaced priorities? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @10:11AM (#12822982)
    Our government has misplaced priorities in my opinion.

    We currently run a huge deficit. All economists tell you this isn't good for the country.

    Our healthcare system is in shambles. It is shameful to hear that Cuba, that has had our economic sanctions for decades, still beats us in some specific medical fields.

    Our education system is in disarray. Students are non-achievers these days. We are also un-able to attract bright students from abroad!

    Out-sourcing is out of hand. We are exporting our manufacturing base. I hear that if the present rate continues, one-third of our entire defense equipment will be manufactured abroad.

    Need I mention immigration? The illeagal immigrants do not pay into any social security system here. When this is going on, you then hear politicians saying that the syetem is nearly broke. Heck, it's nearly broke because not enough people are paying into the system...why?...because a good chunk of people are being payed "under the table".

    Let me stop...I could go on and on. But our politicians have got their priorities wrong in my opinion. Do not be supprised to hear the following: "billions disappear at NASA!" or "NASA still dogged by technical problems despite billions"! Let's wait and see.

    • Illegal immigrants pay roughly $9 billion a year into the Social Security fund. How? They supply their employers with false social security numbers which the employer then withholds the appropriate Social security. Most of the people who are illegal aliens are not being "payed" (nice spelling) under the table. They hold a normal job and usually have a set of docs that look normal. Employers cannot screen whether or not a Social Security number is real. Btw those immigrants will never collect Social Security
    • The national deficit is at around 7 trillion dollars. [brillig.com] Nasa's budget this year - 16 billion dollars [spaceref.com]. Even with the increases scheduled in NASAs budget it doesn't get above 20 billion in this decade. Even at 20 billion a year it take roughly 350 years to pay off the deficit, and that's if it stopped growing NOW.

      The education system in America needs repair no doubt about it. I don't agree that we no longer attract bright students from abroad. I would say that a degree from a U.S. institution is still highly v

  • The need for new designs (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ichbinderharlekin ( 892053 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @10:16AM (#12823024)
    The original moon missions used the venerable Saturn V rocket. The Saturn V was a heavy lifter that is unrivaled even today. The problem is, we don't have any working Saturn V rockets anymore. And I think they threw the plans away during a bit of a spring cleaning. If we intend to get back to the moon within 10 years we have some serious engineering and construction work to get down to. Judging by what we learned on the series of moon missions in the past, NASA will probably have to seriously overengineer everything.

    That fine powdery moon dust turns out to be ridiculously abrasive. The moon happens to lie outside of the major influence of the Earth's magnetic field, so high energy charged particles are a big problem. Considering the setbacks to the shuttle program recently, I wonder if NASA has the budget to start new designs of this sort. Especially considering the fact that we spent enormous amounts of money sending men to the moon Kennedy style.

    Even more, mention of setting up a base on the moon brings thoughts of even greater engineering, construction, and financial burdens. Sending a lander and a few go-karts to the moon is far easier than building a habitat that must withstand the dust, temperatures, and high energy particles. The maintenance required to keep things working on the ISS is tough enough, but throw it a quarter of a million miles away from the Earth on a ball of sandpaper and see how long it lasts.

    This isn't to say I'm not optimistic. I truly hope that we go to the moon and begin building clusters of human life off of this rock we call home. We have all of our eggs in one basket, and the moon seems a good place to start diversifying. I just think that 2015 may be a bit overly optimistic with current budget restraints. (At least in the 60's we had some competition to try to bankrupt, and even then it took us until Reagan to finish the job)

  • Maybe another priority (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sierpinski ( 266120 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @10:23AM (#12823102)
    I'm all for space exploration (of course this really isn't space, and its not really exploration, but anyway) but I think we should set our goals a little closer to home. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] Russia has a 98% literacy rating for people over 15 years old, and I'm sure ours is nowhere close to that. I won't even mention all of the people who are starving. There's a whole soapbox that can be unleashed in this topic of conversation, but I'll keep it, for now, at the literacy part. Personally I'm of the opinion that an education should be one of the top priorities. Now I'm talking about past the basic needs... children can't learn if they die from starvation, obviously, but if you educate the children, you give them an opportunity (not a promise, mind you) to achieve something better in life. Not being able to read or write won't get you very far in this capitalistic society.

  • The biggest problem with moon exploration (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Simonetta ( 207550 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @10:36AM (#12823229)
    The biggest problem with moon exploration is convincing any reasonable and intelligent person on Earth that the entire project is not just a 'welfare for the rich' program for overspecialized engineers and defense contractors who run out of ideas for killing people who don't shop at the Baby Gap.

    We have many major and serious problems on Earth now and are projected to have many more in the not-to-distant future. None of these problems are addressed by anybody's absurd space program.

    I realize that this the least-receptive audience in the world for a rational discussion about the need of a Moon program, nevertheless you are all are really just going to have to used to the fact that there aren't that many people left who seriously share your vision of space exploration.

    The Moon has been right above us for billions of years, and it will be there for billions of more years. It won't make any difference if we address more serious problems first and go back to the Moon in a hundred years or so from now. Nothing there is going to change.

    This is not a troll; it's a serious challenge to the entire mind-set that there are valid reasons to spend billions of dollars on a Moon exploration program.

  • Can we really be ready in 2015? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Theovon ( 109752 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @11:00AM (#12823484)
    It's amazing what technology has and has not advanced since the late 60's. Computers are orders of magnitude faster, but we don't have flying cars.

    What it comes down to is that propultion technology has not really advanced that far. Sure, it's more efficient and fine-tuned, but it's not revolutionarily different. I mean, if all you have is chemicals, all you can do is tinker with what chemicals you use. The only revolutionary change will occur when we develop propultion technology that doesn't use chemicals.

  • Slashdot Commies Oppose Private Lunar Missions? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Baldrson ( 78598 ) * on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @11:55AM (#12824003) Homepage Journal
    While Slashdot has run two stories recently regarding NASA's attempt to recover its glory days, it rejected the following story about private lunar launches. What's the deal? Has Slashdot gone Commie?

    Baldrson [geocities.com] writes "Peter Diamandis, originator of the Ansari X-Prize is now claiming private companies may beat NASA back to the Moon [space.com]: "In the next five to eight years we will have the first private orbital flights occurring. When you're in orbit you are two-thirds of the way to anywhere. I predict that within about three years of private human orbital flights...you'll have the first private teams of people stockpiling fuel on orbit and making a bee-line for the Moon." If Diamandis's math is correct and Bigelow's $50M America's Space Prize [space.com] is sufficient for orbit, NASA could set up an "Apollo Prize" for a lot less money than they'd spend themselves to return to the moon. Indeed, someone like Paul Allen could afford [salon.com] to endow such a prize if NASA gets too bogged down with funding cycle politics again [slashdot.org]."

  • Reality check (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Wednesday June 15, 2005 @12:50PM (#12824552) Homepage
    1. The Shuttle is scheduled to be retired after 2010, or after the next crash, whichever comes first.
    2. NASA doesn't even have a design ready to replace the shuttle.
    3. NASA's last three heavy-lifter projects all failed.
    4. It took 11 years, from 1970 to 1981, to build and fly the Shuttle.
    So there's going to be a period after 2010 during which the US won't have a heavy launch capability. Probably a long period.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close