Back to the Moon (..why?)

[RedSkunk]

Nasa plans return to Moon by 2020

The US space agency Nasa has announced plans to return to the Moon by 2020.

Nasa administrator Dr Michael Griffin said four astronauts would be sent in a new space vehicle, in a project that would cost $104bn (£58bn).
...

Feel free to read the rest of the article, to be sure. But my fundamental question is: why? I have mixed feelings about the entire space project, actually. On one hand, it's money that could be going to a better cause. And much of the technology that is created here oftentimes finds itself into military applications. However, on the other hand, at least it's not going directly into the Pentagon's coffers (which it likely would go otherwise).

But yes, getting back to the topic at hand. What are the reasons behind walking around on the moon again? Truly scientific? Political esteem? Especially after the Columbia disaster? Or...? 'Splain away, I beg you!

[Kirk-Cocaine]

Well, it's probably for more research. But I don't see why they shouldn't go back. I've gone somewhere twice before. :P

But, seriously it is kinda a waste of money. They should spend the money on trying to get man to Mars.

[lapis]

At 9/19/05 03:38 PM, red_skunk wrote: Nasa plans return to Moon by 2020

The US space agency Nasa has announced plans to return to the Moon by 2020.

Nasa administrator Dr Michael Griffin said four astronauts would be sent in a new space vehicle, in a project that would cost $104bn (£58bn).
...

Feel free to read the rest of the article, to be sure. But my fundamental question is: why? I have mixed feelings about the entire space project, actually. On one hand, it's money that could be going to a better cause. And much of the technology that is created here oftentimes finds itself into military applications. However, on the other hand, at least it's not going directly into the Pentagon's coffers (which it likely would go otherwise).

But yes, getting back to the topic at hand. What are the reasons behind walking around on the moon again? Truly scientific? Political esteem? Especially after the Columbia disaster? Or...? 'Splain away, I beg you!

I heard the NASA want to send a manned mission to Mars sometime this century, so they need a permanently manned moon base for research. It's of course a prestige thing, after the Russians had the first permanently manned space station the NASA want a new major achievement. But the research does produce new useful applications, take GPS, mobile phones and satellite television for example.

[ReiperX]

I think its more of a preliminary for the Mars mission. See what we have now is capable of, we have better instruments now to measure the effects of this travel on the craft, so we can get a slightly better understanding of the things the craft will encounter on the Mars mission. Plus this could end up being hte foundation to more equpment put on the Moon to assist on aiding the mars mission.

I see this as a stepping stone to Mars. Am I all that thrilled about Moon or Mars, not really.

[Elfer]

Because it's there.

[Slimyguy]

At 9/19/05 03:38 PM, red_skunk wrote: But yes, getting back to the topic at hand. What are the reasons behind walking around on the moon again? Truly scientific? Political esteem? Especially after the Columbia disaster? Or...? 'Splain away, I beg you!

We should because we are already way behind where we should be when it comes to space exploration. Anybody with half a brain and who watches Star Trek should know that we should have already explored mars, colonized the moon, and have half the world been taken over by superclones by now. Dur.

[Demosthenez]

Mans got to expand to somewhere sooner or later. I cant see us staying here forever. We will all kill eachother sooner or later, imho.

That way if we seperate, we can survive if one place is destroyed. Thats why I want to go. And the moon is cool.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 9/19/05 04:54 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: That way if we seperate, we can survive if one place is destroyed. Thats why I want to go. And the moon is cool.

The moon isn't capable of supporting life for any length of time without earth based supplies, the same way space stations aren't. A colony on the moon would be nothing more than a space station with lots of storage space and little potential to deorbit.

If we must have a manned mission anywhere, it should be to Mars. We've already explored the moon, and mars is likely to hold more keys and information about our own earth than the moon ever will.

Overall, however, the priority of manned space travel should be low, and should be in the private sector, not the public sector--all NASA really is a convoluted industrial subsidy that should be phased down, to just launching and supporting necessary communication, weather, and military satellites.

[seventy-one]

The moon is going to be a launching pad for missions to mars (according to the article), and they're not going to use much new money, they're going to use the money from the shuttle fleet, (and some parts) to get man back on the moon. I'm all for getting man back on the moon, more research can be done as well.

[Demosthenez]

At 9/19/05 05:21 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: The moon isn't capable of supporting life for any length of time without earth based supplies, the same way space stations aren't.

Oh, I know. I would rather we skip the moon period and make a staging point at (cant remember its name) but some place where there is neutral gravity between the Earth and the Moon, approximately 216,000 miles out. Would be a lot easier to escape launch off from that point than from the moon.

Overall, however, the priority of manned space travel should be low, and should be in the private sector, not the public sector--all NASA really is a convoluted industrial subsidy that should be phased down, to just launching and supporting necessary communication, weather, and military satellites.

The private sector could never afford it. There would be no immediate return, it would cost BILLIONS, and they would need the best collection of minds in the world, something I think only the goverment can do. However, once we are able to terraform stuff, or at least extract the water and resources from livable places like Mars and power it, the return would be great.

[BeFell]

Hmm, lets try reading the article shall we...

This vision aims to return humans to the Moon, and then to use it as a staging point for a manned mission to Mars.

"We believe this architecture... achieves those goals in the most cost-effective, efficient manner that we could do it," said Dr Griffin in a news briefing at Nasa headquarters in Washington DC.

Oh my would you look at that!

Because it's less expensive that way.

[Demosthenez]

Ahh, there it is, Langran Point, L1.

Thats the name for it in mathmatical terms. Neutral gravity at that spot.

[Jimsween]

Proprietary technology most likely. It's alot easier to shut the evangelical conservatives up about scientific funding when you say your doing it to get to the moon or something.

[tigerkitty]

At 9/19/05 06:28 PM, BeFell wrote:
Oh my would you look at that!

I don't know why they have decided to champion the project now. My only idea is that is a potential morale booster.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 9/19/05 06:28 PM, BeFell wrote: Oh my would you look at that!

Not reading the provided articles makes you cool. B-)

Seriously, my point about exploring mars over the moon notwithstanding, isn't this old news?

"In a speech prepared for delivery Wednesday, Mr. Bush is calling for a lunar base to be established within two decades and a manned landing on Mars sometime after 2030, an official said.

I still stand by my earlier point about space exploration being put on the back burner with the exception of the launch and maintenance of necessary satellites.

At 9/19/05 06:20 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: The private sector could never afford it. There would be no immediate return, it would cost BILLIONS, and they would need the best collection of minds in the world, something I think only the goverment can do. However, once we are able to terraform stuff, or at least extract the water and resources from livable places like Mars and power it, the return would be great.

That's been said about many things. The bottom line, if there is money to be made from extracting resources from the moon or mars or wherever, the private sector could afford it. Most new industries don't form with immediate returns anyway--that's why there's investments. Seriously, if it's not worth the private sector investing in it for the extraction of minerals and other resources, why should the government?

[jmaster306]

At 9/19/05 04:25 PM, Elfer wrote: Because it's there.

Pretty much

C'mon, think of how many science fiction books include stations/cities/etc. on the moon as some kind of waypoint to the galexy. If nothing else, I'd rather them test their two part shuttle mission on something a little closer before relying on it just working on it's way to mars.

[BeFell]

At 9/19/05 06:53 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: "In a speech prepared for delivery Wednesday, Mr. Bush is calling for a lunar base to be established within two decades and a manned landing on Mars sometime after 2030, an official said.

I still stand by my earlier point about space exploration being put on the back burner with the exception of the launch and maintenance of necessary satellites.

What should we wait for? The UN to declare world peace and all people throughout the world to join hands and celebrate the fact they just solved world hunger and resource scarcity?

At 9/19/05 06:20 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: The private sector could never afford it. There would be no immediate return, it would cost BILLIONS, and they would need the best collection of minds in the world, something I think only the goverment can do. However, once we are able to terraform stuff, or at least extract the water and resources from livable places like Mars and power it, the return would be great.

That's been said about many things. The bottom line, if there is money to be made from extracting resources from the moon or mars or wherever, the private sector could afford it. Most new industries don't form with immediate returns anyway--that's why there's investments. Seriously, if it's not worth the private sector investing in it for the extraction of minerals and other resources, why should the government?

I agree that any endeavor such as mining or what not should be done privately but very few organizations are going to do anything simply for the sake of exploration. Corporations only do things that will make income that is why space exploration has to be done by the government. Manned missions may also help us here more than some realize. Take for example some major questions about the Mars mission, "how will we power a base on another planet," or "What will the astronauts eat for all that time? Is suspended animation possible?" The answers to those questions may produce technology that could have a profound effect on our everyday lives.

[metalmercenary]

why? havent u been reading the nasa website? there planning on making outposts on the moon, so they can use the same technique on mars in the future, and also to test out out the new spaceship design they have invented, as it will be able to use the same ship several times, only replacing a few certain parts

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 9/19/05 07:20 PM, BeFell wrote: What should we wait for? The UN to declare world peace and all people throughout the world to join hands and celebrate the fact they just solved world hunger and resource scarcity?

Wait until we're not crippled by staggering debt and going even further into it by massive deficit spending. We sort of need to make sure our nation is solvent here on earth before we start setting up extensions of it on other planets.

I agree that any endeavor such as mining or what not should be done privately but very few organizations are going to do anything simply for the sake of exploration. Corporations only do things that will make income that is why space exploration has to be done by the government. Manned missions may also help us here more than some realize. Take for example some major questions about the Mars mission, "how will we power a base on another planet," or "What will the astronauts eat for all that time? Is suspended animation possible?" The answers to those questions may produce technology that could have a profound effect on our everyday lives.

I honestly cannot think of any questions that could not be answered by logic, simulation here on earth, or unmanned probes.

[TheShrike]

Why did Europe go back to the new world?

After all, they'd already been there once.

idiots.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 9/19/05 08:07 PM, TheShrike wrote: Why did Europe go back to the new world?

After all, they'd already been there once.

idiots.

Shrike, no one's arguing that we not go back to the moon simply because we've already been there. Obviously, another moon mission would glean more information on the moon, and allow for more research, etc. What is being debated here is the priority such a mission needs to have.

[BeFell]

At 9/19/05 08:16 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Shrike, no one's arguing that we not go back to the moon simply because we've already been there. Obviously, another moon mission would glean more information on the moon, and allow for more research, etc. What is being debated here is the priority such a mission needs to have.

Yeah all of my high priority stuff takes 15 years. What exactly are you upset about, you want them to them to wait I think they are. Hell we went from sputnik to the moon in less time.

[IllustriousPotentate]

At 9/19/05 08:54 PM, BeFell wrote:

Yeah all of my high priority stuff takes 15 years. What exactly are you upset about, you want them to them to wait I think they are. Hell we went from sputnik to the moon in less time.

I'm not upset about anything. But I feel there are more pressing research needs than manned interplanetary research right now, and that our government is not in a financial position to be going out and spending money left and right on something that isn't important. If we had a large budget suplus and a small debt, I wouldn't have any problem in the world with it.

[Elfer]

At 9/19/05 06:28 PM, BeFell wrote: Hmm, lets try reading the article shall we...

This vision aims to return humans to the Moon, and then to use it as a staging point for a manned mission to Mars.

"We believe this architecture... achieves those goals in the most cost-effective, efficient manner that we could do it," said Dr Griffin in a news briefing at Nasa headquarters in Washington DC.

Oh my would you look at that!

Right, but this is practically begging the question. All we've got so far is "Why are they going to the moon?" "So they can get to Mars in a more cost-effective manner." "Why are they going to Mars?" "Err, because it's there?"

[BeFell]

At 9/19/05 09:02 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote:

At 9/19/05 08:54 PM, BeFell wrote:

Yeah all of my high priority stuff takes 15 years. What exactly are you upset about, you want them to them to wait I think they are. Hell we went from sputnik to the moon in less time.

I'm not upset about anything. But I feel there are more pressing research needs than manned interplanetary research right now, and that our government is not in a financial position to be going out and spending money left and right on something that isn't important. If we had a large budget suplus and a small debt, I wouldn't have any problem in the world with it.

It's not a big priority, they are talking in terms of 15 to 25 years. That's as long as I've been alive. If they were "spending money" left in right Bush would have declared we would be to Mars by the end of the decade. Right now it's just "we'll get there... eventually just wanna let you know we're thinking about it. Hell we had Neil Armstrong hopping around on the moon 8 years after Shepard just barely made it out of the atmosphere. This is a much smaller step and it's going to take twice as long.

[asdfrasdfg]

At 9/19/05 11:21 PM, CadillacClock wrote:

Expand and colonize.

So long as our world constantly expands its resources (optimistically, there would be some thing we could use off of one of the surrounding planets) and breathing room (less people per planet) we could actually benefit quite a bit from colonizing another planet.

Yes we could. Nobody is going to accept the complete end of the human race, ever. With the terraforming of another planet, we don't have to yet accept this fate.

Only problem is there are a few questions that have to be answered. Are the ice-caps actually just frozen water? If they turn out to be other materials other then h20, then terraforming may not be possible, at least with the water that is there. We would have to manufacture water somehow, using pure oxygen and hydrogen. Which isn't really feasible in the next 1000 years, at least on a large scale to half-cover an entire fucking planet.

Also, terraforming takes a long time. A really long time, like thousands, possibly tens of thousands of years before you're able to take a stroll along the shore walking your martian dog. If GG human race by then, than there will be a planet with only a tiny crew there, terraforming away. And maybe another small population on the moon.

But in the long run, the expenditure of natural resources and overpopulation are things not to be taken lightly. They will happen, and that's a given.

Unless mass-genocide is allowed to happen, which I doubt it ever will.

i think they said something about testing their knew standtard space flight vehicleand to gather more rock samples and stuff even though we know the most about this body in our solar system out of any other body we still know very little and they are thinking of making a moon base so um i think they would have to be there for that unless they do that one thing where they make a robot with robo arms do everything with a remote controll or artifical intelligence

[RedSkunk]

I just realized that I'm totally uninterested in this topic.

[TheShrike]

At 9/19/05 08:16 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: What is being debated here is the priority such a mission needs to have.

And what the fuck do you know about astronomy, anyway? What does anyone in this topic know about it?

Nasa recieves less than 1/100th of a penny from a single tax dollar.

FEMA gets more than that, and pays less people. Nasa may have it's troubles, but I doubt anyone here comes even remotely close to understanding any of them.

[Newsdee]

About the cost, a lot of it is because of the R&D required. Many of the findings then find their way to commercial products. It was this way at the time of the Apollo.

The thing is that this going back to the moon was long overdue. Last time we went there we brought a computer less powerful than the Flash player. To put in another way, it was so primitive (yet the best they had at the time) that the in-flight computer could be completely written in Flash today, and be more performant. :-)

Of course that's just an example. We have also advanced in many other areas (better materials, more understanding of astronomy and orbital mechanis, etc). So not only we should be able to return to the moon, but also get much more out of it this time.

And it's also a morale booster. As long as the US is the only country that gets there, it's like the moon is spray-painted to look like Old Glory.