A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA Back to Moon by 2018 - But WHY ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 19th 05, 11:10 PM
B1ackwater
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA Back to Moon by 2018 - But WHY ?

(CNN) -- NASA Administrator Michael Griffin rolled out NASA's plan for
the future Monday, including new details about the spaceship intended
to replace the shuttle and a timeline for returning astronauts to the
moon in 2018.

The design for the new crew exploration vehicle (CEV) looks a lot like
the Apollo-era spaceship that first took NASA to the moon a generation
ago. It is a similarity that is not lost on Griffin.

"Think of it as Apollo on steroids," he told reporters at NASA
headquarters in Washington.

Under the new NASA plan, a "moon shot" would actually require two
launches, both using rockets derived from shuttle launch hardware.

One unmanned, heavy-lift rocket would transport a lunar lander plus
supplies and other equipment to low-Earth orbit.

Afterward, a second rocket would carry a crew capsule capable of
transporting up to six astronauts into a similar orbit. The two would
dock with each other, and then head to the moon.

The first few missions are planned to put four astronauts on the
surface of the moon for a week, while the unoccupied mothership orbits
overhead.

.. . . . .

OK - the question is "WHY ?". A few people for a few days at
a time ... it's just not worth doing (except to enrich certain
aerospace companies).

While doing the 'final frontier' thing is appealing, there just
HAS to be a little cost/benifit thinking done first. Describing
this particular endeavour as "Apollo on steroids" is quite apt -
because it doesn't seem to accomplish much beyond what Apollo
accomplished, just a little more of it for a lot more money.

IMHO, we should not return people to the moon until they're
in a position to STAY there, with plenty of company. This
means a whole different sort of program - with the first
phases being entirely robotic. First of all, a supply of
water MUST be found and exploited. Secondly, habitats and
equipment for a growing colony MUST be in place. Only then
should people start arriving.

Robots can explore, robots can drill and mine, robots can
construct habitats from imported and natural materials,
robots can assemble equipment - and do it cheaply, safely
and well. Any moon colony should be set up from the get-go
to be perpetually self-sustaining ... because financing it
from earth would be a perpetual and heavy drain on cash and
resources.

The moon is especially suited for using robots. Not only is
the gravity light and the solar-power potential high but it's
less than two light-seconds from earth. This means that
telepresence robots - with human operators or guiders on
earth - can be usefully employed. This will take up the
slack until the electronic intelligence folks come up with
some decent autonomous designs.

Robo-Ants - swarm IQ - may be very useful for exploring,
exploiting and building certain kinds of habitats. Smarter
bots will be necessary to run/maintain certain kinds of
equipment. Field-usable designs seem to still be ten or
twenty years away. We've got the computing power now, but
aren't sure what to do with it. 'Smart' is more than
gigaFLOPS, it's doing the right things in the right order,
'mind' -vs- 'mess'.

Lessons and techniques learned from moon-bots can then be
applied to the NEXT big step - mars.

In any event, it never hurts to put our eggs in more than
one planetary basket, but the next step is to MAKE the
damned basket rather than just shuttle veritible tourists
to the moon and back and watch them do pretty much exactly
what their predecessors did before. The 'next step' isn't
one of volume, doing more of the same old crap, but a whole
different paradigm - colonization. THAT will be worth the
money and effort.

  #2  
Old September 19th 05, 11:23 PM
The_Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

B1ackwater wrote:

OK - the question is "WHY ?". A few people for a few days at
a time ... it's just not worth doing (except to enrich certain
aerospace companies).

The answer is chrome plating it, of course, that way when we finish
paving the earth the shine off of it at night will allow us to eliminate
street light posts, which cause accidents.

*********************************
http://crazypolitics.blogspot.com

"I knew Bush legitimately won in 2000 When a
Chicago Daly showed up to count votes"
  #3  
Old September 19th 05, 11:32 PM
Alex Terrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Almost agree. It doesn't need colonisation; exploitation would do.

And there might be a case for sending manned crew to visit a short list
of chosen base locations, before the base is deployed.

A descent cargo lander could have landed a mobile base, which could
have been crewed on an adhoc basis. As it is, each mission will do just
a little more than Apollo did 50 years before it.

  #4  
Old September 19th 05, 11:46 PM
Crash
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Actually,

The Hubble telescope recently spotted the Titlelist that Buzz Aldrin
was was whacking around. Ever golf fans, the republicans want to
finish the round...

But on a more serious note -- we will not be alone when we go back up
there, the chinese will be up there. In reality it's a
military/industrial/complex take and hold the higher ground at any cost
thannnggg...

  #5  
Old September 20th 05, 12:56 AM
abracadabra
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"B1ackwater" wrote in message
...
(CNN) -- NASA Administrator Michael Griffin rolled out NASA's plan for
the future Monday, including new details about the spaceship intended
to replace the shuttle and a timeline for returning astronauts to the
moon in 2018.



OK - the question is "WHY ?". A few people for a few days at
a time ... it's just not worth doing (except to enrich certain
aerospace companies).

While doing the 'final frontier' thing is appealing, there just
HAS to be a little cost/benifit thinking done first. Describing
this particular endeavour as "Apollo on steroids" is quite apt -
because it doesn't seem to accomplish much beyond what Apollo
accomplished, just a little more of it for a lot more money.

IMHO, we should not return people to the moon until they're
in a position to STAY there, with plenty of company. This
means a whole different sort of program - with the first
phases being entirely robotic. First of all, a supply of
water MUST be found and exploited. Secondly, habitats and
equipment for a growing colony MUST be in place. Only then
should people start arriving.


I know they found at least one decent water supply in a crater filled with
ice on the dark side.
One decent fiction book I read had humans terraforming Mars by crashing
comets into the planet's surface - comets rich in frozen nitrogen, oxygen,
water, etc. Are there enough asteroids in the belt with water that it might
be worth fetching some to put on Mars or the moon?

Robots can explore, robots can drill and mine, robots can
construct habitats from imported and natural materials,
robots can assemble equipment - and do it cheaply, safely
and well. Any moon colony should be set up from the get-go
to be perpetually self-sustaining ... because financing it
from earth would be a perpetual and heavy drain on cash and
resources.


Agreed. I'd hate to be colonists on the moon depending on one party staying
in power.

In any event, it never hurts to put our eggs in more than
one planetary basket, but the next step is to MAKE the
damned basket rather than just shuttle veritible tourists
to the moon and back and watch them do pretty much exactly
what their predecessors did before. The 'next step' isn't
one of volume, doing more of the same old crap, but a whole
different paradigm - colonization. THAT will be worth the
money and effort.


The USA will fall, as all empires fall, but what a legacy to leave behind -
a colonized Moon, Mars or colonies in the asteroid belts.
Sadly I don't think the current administration is serious about space, and
the Democrats can't seem to get excited about it either. My fear is that
it'll be the Muslims or Chinese who actually get around to colonizing space
while the USA twiddles it's thumbs. What a waste.





  #6  
Old September 20th 05, 12:58 AM
abracadabra
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
oups.com...
Almost agree. It doesn't need colonisation; exploitation would do.


What could we exploit on the moon that would worth the shipping cost (OK, I
know it takes a lot less energy to break lunar orbit than to break terran
orbit, but still!)


And there might be a case for sending manned crew to visit a short list
of chosen base locations, before the base is deployed.

A descent cargo lander could have landed a mobile base, which could
have been crewed on an adhoc basis. As it is, each mission will do just
a little more than Apollo did 50 years before it.


*sigh*
I remember staying up late to see men walk on the moon. I slept through it,
but I'll never forget how everyone in the USA (in my little world of
elementary school) saw everything differently the next day.


  #7  
Old September 20th 05, 01:48 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


abracadabra wrote:
"B1ackwater" wrote in message
...
(CNN) -- NASA Administrator Michael Griffin rolled out NASA's plan for
the future Monday, including new details about the spaceship intended
to replace the shuttle and a timeline for returning astronauts to the
moon in 2018.



OK - the question is "WHY ?". A few people for a few days at
a time ... it's just not worth doing (except to enrich certain
aerospace companies).

While doing the 'final frontier' thing is appealing, there just
HAS to be a little cost/benifit thinking done first. Describing
this particular endeavour as "Apollo on steroids" is quite apt -
because it doesn't seem to accomplish much beyond what Apollo
accomplished, just a little more of it for a lot more money.

IMHO, we should not return people to the moon until they're
in a position to STAY there, with plenty of company. This
means a whole different sort of program - with the first
phases being entirely robotic. First of all, a supply of
water MUST be found and exploited. Secondly, habitats and
equipment for a growing colony MUST be in place. Only then
should people start arriving.


I know they found at least one decent water supply in a crater filled with
ice on the dark side.


Not precisely, They think water is there, but not absolutely proven.


One decent fiction book I read had humans terraforming Mars by crashing
comets into the planet's surface - comets rich in frozen nitrogen, oxygen,
water, etc. Are there enough asteroids in the belt with water that it might
be worth fetching some to put on Mars or the moon?


Asteroid belt, no. Try Kuiper belt and Oort Cloud. Also, moons,
starting with Jupiter outwards, are rich with H20 and other necessary
volatiles. Robotic vehicles could being back all that would be needed
to support a Moon and Mars habitat.



Robots can explore, robots can drill and mine, robots can
construct habitats from imported and natural materials,
robots can assemble equipment - and do it cheaply, safely
and well. Any moon colony should be set up from the get-go
to be perpetually self-sustaining ... because financing it
from earth would be a perpetual and heavy drain on cash and
resources.


Agreed. I'd hate to be colonists on the moon depending on one party staying
in power.

In any event, it never hurts to put our eggs in more than
one planetary basket, but the next step is to MAKE the
damned basket rather than just shuttle veritible tourists
to the moon and back and watch them do pretty much exactly
what their predecessors did before. The 'next step' isn't
one of volume, doing more of the same old crap, but a whole
different paradigm - colonization. THAT will be worth the
money and effort.


The USA will fall, as all empires fall, but what a legacy to leave behind -
a colonized Moon, Mars or colonies in the asteroid belts.
Sadly I don't think the current administration is serious about space, and
the Democrats can't seem to get excited about it either. My fear is that
it'll be the Muslims or Chinese who actually get around to colonizing space
while the USA twiddles it's thumbs. What a waste.




  #8  
Old September 20th 05, 01:51 AM
Alan Anderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"abracadabra" wrote:

I know they found at least one decent water supply in a crater filled with
ice on the dark side.


"It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know that ain't so."
  #9  
Old September 20th 05, 02:11 AM
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Alan Anderson wrote:

"abracadabra" wrote:

I know they found at least one decent water supply in a crater filled with
ice on the dark side.


"It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know that ain't so."

Maybe the dark side of his brain needs the sunshine of a bright day.


--
So they are even more frightened than we are, he thought. Why, is this
all that's meant by heroism? And did I do it for the sake of my country?
And was he to blame with his dimple and his blue eyes? How frightened he
was! He thought I was going to kill him. Why should I kill him? My hand
trembled. And they have given me the St. George's Cross. I can't make it
out, I can't make it out! +-Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"
  #10  
Old September 20th 05, 02:20 AM
Michael Rhino
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"B1ackwater" wrote in message
...
(CNN) -- NASA Administrator Michael Griffin rolled out NASA's plan for
the future Monday, including new details about the spaceship intended
to replace the shuttle and a timeline for returning astronauts to the
moon in 2018.

The design for the new crew exploration vehicle (CEV) looks a lot like
the Apollo-era spaceship that first took NASA to the moon a generation
ago. It is a similarity that is not lost on Griffin.

"Think of it as Apollo on steroids," he told reporters at NASA
headquarters in Washington.


In my mind, Apollo on steroids would require lots of flights -- around 50
manned flights and 50 heavy lift cargo flights over 20 years. I don't know
if that is the plan. No single flight can be Apollo on steroids.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Apollo Hoax FAQ (is not spam) :-) Nathan Jones Astronomy Misc 5 July 29th 04 06:14 AM
The Apollo Hoax FAQ darla Astronomy Misc 15 July 25th 04 02:57 PM
The apollo faq the inquirer Astronomy Misc 11 April 22nd 04 06:23 AM
significant addition to section 25 of the faq heat Misc 1 April 15th 04 01:20 AM
significant addition to section 25 of the faq heat UK Astronomy 1 April 15th 04 01:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.