|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |