JennRose Posted September 19, 2005 #1 Share Posted September 19, 2005 Geez, could we possibly spend billions on anything more useless? NASA unveils moon program NASA Administrator Michael Griffin showcased a mission to the moon in an Apollo-style capsule sitting atop rockets fashioned from shuttle components. "The space program is a long-term investment in our future," Griffin said. The new lunar program would begin in 2018 by landing four astronauts on the moon for a seven-day stay. The last lunar landing was Apollo 17 in 1972. The centerpiece of NASA's moonshot is the new spaceship known as the crew exploration vehicle, or CEV. It will be "designed to carry four astronauts to and from the moon, support up to six crew members on future missions to Mars, and deliver crew and supplies to the international space station," according to NASA's Web site. The new crew vehicle and lander will be similar to those used during the Apollo missions, but three times larger. Griffin said building a larger rocket system will allow for landing anywhere on the lunar surface. The Apollo missions only had enough fuel to land along the moon's equator. NASA hopes to have the rocket system ferrying crew and supplies to the space station in five years, according to NASA's Web site. The scenario was presented to White House officials last week before its formal unveiling to the public on Monday. Even before the official announcement, there was criticism from Capitol Hill over the cost of the lunar program, given U.S. government commitments to the Iraq war and recovery from Hurricane Katrina. "This plan is coming out at a time when the nation is facing significant budgetary challenges," Rep. Bart Gordon, a Tennessee Democrat on the House Science Committee, said in a statement. "Getting agreement to move forward on it is going to be heavy lifting in the current environment, and it's clear that strong presidential leadership will be needed." Full article: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/09/19/s...moon/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffybunny Posted September 19, 2005 #2 Share Posted September 19, 2005 In other news the Spanish government is spending 12 billion dollars to sponsor a naval fleet to sail west in the attempt to find a path to India in order to speed the spice trade. Somehow I have a vague memory that we already did this...30 years ago... What a step...uh...sideways this is for the technology industry... This is a waste...Mars maybe, but the moon is old news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennRose Posted September 19, 2005 Author #3 Share Posted September 19, 2005 In other news the Spanish government is spending 12 billion dollars to sponsor a naval fleet to sail west in the attempt to find a path to India in order to speed the spice trade. 851556[/snapback] That was awesome. Yeah, I think we have determined that the moon is not a happening scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanato Posted September 19, 2005 #4 Share Posted September 19, 2005 The moon is a stepping stone to mars. We go to the moon and we can go to mars ~Thanato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stillcrazy Posted September 19, 2005 #5 Share Posted September 19, 2005 (edited) The realitty of moon shot is in order to clean up all the trash we left behind in 72. The current owners have filed suit in the U.S. 9th Circut court and have obtained an order of writ forcing NASA to remove any and all chattles, buildings, vehicles and so on. Asked about the law suit, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, commented, "Yes we did leave a few things behind, but the owners of the moon refuse to assist in locating the person or persons who stole the hubcaps off the lunar Rover" Source Edited September 20, 2005 by stillcrazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted September 20, 2005 #6 Share Posted September 20, 2005 The moon is a stepping stone to mars. We go to the moon and we can go to mars ~Thanato 851696[/snapback] We've already been to the moon, so as of now we should be going to mars and not the moon again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanato Posted September 20, 2005 #7 Share Posted September 20, 2005 We go to the moon and pionier some of the technology that can be used on mars, and besides going back to the moon makes sence, to bad they didnt do it in the 90s, we could all ready be on mars. ~Thanato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted September 20, 2005 #8 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Why would we want to be on mars? This would all cost hundreds of billions for a publicity stunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoa182 Posted September 20, 2005 #9 Share Posted September 20, 2005 (edited) Why would we want to be on mars? Publicity stunt? thats a bit dull. The idea of going to the moon first is to show that humans are capable of 'living off the land' being self dependant rather than relying on constant supplies. It also has less gravity so we could take off from the moon for a fraction of the cost of using earth. We could carry bigger payloads from the moon which drastically reduces the number of trips we make too. NASA is Building a PERMINANT BASE ON THE MOON FROM 2018 ! ! ! It's human nature to explore and thats what we will do. I'm glad theres not many people around with your attitude to space exploration. Sad Edited September 20, 2005 by whoa182 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JennRose Posted September 20, 2005 Author #10 Share Posted September 20, 2005 A permanent base on the Moon, huh? Living off the land? And pray tell, how would these colonists survive other than costing billions of dollars to have supplies flown up from Earth? If we were talking about a planet with a habitable environment, ok, I understand. But the moon is a hunk of dirt. There will be no farming or industry available. Basically it would just be a far off dependant that would waste funds, or waste funds trying to re-create an Earth-like atmosphere. I do believe we have enough issues trying to support people who live on this planet rather than pumping money into something completely unnecessary at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabbit Posted September 20, 2005 #11 Share Posted September 20, 2005 with JennRose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4dplane Posted September 20, 2005 #12 Share Posted September 20, 2005 (edited) O and the 200 billion plus dollars already spent on the war in Iraq is money well spent. Or the 200 Plus billion that we will spend in New Orleans is money well spent - Because they are going to make it better than it was, well we could have done that in the first place for a fraction of the cost... NASA’s budget is a fart in the wind compared to Americas current and past war costs “PERIOD”!! Edited September 20, 2005 by 4dplane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhomphaia Posted September 20, 2005 #13 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Anyone ever think that this next moon mission could be to determine the current technological feasibility of a base? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted September 20, 2005 #14 Share Posted September 20, 2005 Why would we want to be on mars? Publicity stunt? thats a bit dull. The idea of going to the moon first is to show that humans are capable of 'living off the land' being self dependant rather than relying on constant supplies. It also has less gravity so we could take off from the moon for a fraction of the cost of using earth. We could carry bigger payloads from the moon which drastically reduces the number of trips we make too. NASA is Building a PERMINANT BASE ON THE MOON FROM 2018 ! ! ! It's human nature to explore and thats what we will do. I'm glad theres not many people around with your attitude to space exploration. Sad 852997[/snapback] Uh, guess what? We already live off the land here on earth. The only thing anyone can use to survive on the moon is solar energy, which can be found here on earth. That's about it. No water, no iron, no coke, no limestone, no oil, no uranium, no plants, no animals, nada, zilch. Rocket launches from the moon? Less gravity? Fraction of a cost? What are you smoking? You do realize that in order to launch a rocket from the moon, the rocket, its parts and the propellant must first be launched from earth to the moon? If a rocket is capable of escaping the earth at 7mps it can probably by pass the moon's gravitational pull as well wouldn't you think? Then that's not taking into consideration the amount of material and men necessary to launch to the moon, build a launch pad, and maintain it. This would take thousands of men. Thousands of rockets launches over decades costing trillions of dollars. And for what? My attitude towards space exploration is not to p*** away billions of dollars on something we've already done (explore the moon). In the 60's and 70's we found out it was a barren rock. NASA is best suited with rovers and sattelites to do its exploration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whoa182 Posted September 20, 2005 #15 Share Posted September 20, 2005 (edited) You have such a narrow-mind in viewing things... Start researching multiple sciences that are going on... Look into advanced material development and energy production projects, Robotics and MM. Many fields of science will come together to reduce costs of setting up a lunar base by a significant amount. The Technology in 2018 when we finally get back to the moon will be far more advanced than anything we have today. Time isn't standing still and there are really exciting projects that are in development right now that will change space travel and the cost of getting into space. Majority of the building by 2020 is likely to be done by Robots or Humans using VR to control robots on the moon. We will use structures that self assemble (smart materials) or inflatable structures that can heal itself when damaged. Building an outpost or a colony on the moon is a crucial step in ensuring the survival of humans. Edited September 20, 2005 by whoa182 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted September 21, 2005 #16 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Dude, do you realize that in order to launch a rocket off the moon that you must first launch that rocket from earth? What is the point in this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenat Posted September 21, 2005 #17 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Not if the rocket is built on the moon from local materials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted September 21, 2005 #18 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Consider this: about 80% of a rocket's weight is propelant, a mixture of liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. 10% of the weight is structural. The remaining 10% is cargo capacity. If a rocket launched from the moon only needs to be 1/8 the size of the rocket which semt it there, based on moon's mass to earth's in relation to the escape velocity of the moon compared to earth's (so I assume 1/8 of the earth's), then it would take a minimum of two trips for this moon launched rocket to reach the moon. So if a rocket is launched from the moon, there have really been 3 rockets launched and not one. This is a ratio of 1:3 in terms of rockets launched from the earth to explore outerspace to rockets launched from the moon to explore outerspace (remember to count the two it took to get there). Is this a good ratio? Now consider that in order for the rocket to land on the moon there will be additional fuel needed in the landing module to make a safe landing, but I will disregard this as I don't have the specs on any of this, though if I find them... Now, there will also be needed a rocket launched with men to the moon (or robots as some have proposed) to assemble the rocket (assuming 3 men/robots in one trip could do this) and two rockets launched to carry materials to build the launch pad (assuming the original crew/robots are able to assemble this as well and that it only takes two rockets with material to build a launch pad). So now the ration is 1:6. Is this a good ratio? No, because I doubt the 1 succeeds in cost, time, effort and energy what the 6 will take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted September 21, 2005 #19 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Not if the rocket is built on the moon from local materials. 854274[/snapback] With what? Moon dust? How many rockets need to be launched to the moon to deliver the factories necessary to combine the iron, coke and limestone to produce steel on the moon? You will also need vast quantities of water as well. What about the titanium, copper and aluminum parts? What of the rubber, foam and plastic parts made from petrol which is refined from oil, which the moon does not have? NOne of this can be found on the moon. Liquid hydrogen or liquid oxygen? Kerosene? This to is made from refining oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turbonium Posted September 21, 2005 #20 Share Posted September 21, 2005 This is an artist's concept of the new lunar lander from the CNN article. He didn't put any stars into his sketch because the lunar surface is so bright he couldn't see any!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted September 21, 2005 #21 Share Posted September 21, 2005 For you helium-3 fanatics, there is helium-3 here on earth found within rock and oodles of it in the ocean. It is also attainable through tritium decay. The question arose because the rocks of ocean islands like Hawaii contain relatively large amounts of helium-3 http://www.physorg.com/news6213.html Tritium is an anthropogenic tracer produced by atmospheric nuclear bomb tests which enters the ocean at the surface. It differs for other anthropogenic gases (e.g., the chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs) in two ways: tritium is not stable, but decays into helium-3 (half-life 12.43 years) http://www.met.ed.ac.uk/mednet/tritiumhelium.html Here are some maps of where to find it: http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/whp_atlas/pacific...e3/propmaps.htm Other links: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v436/...e050825-08.html http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/paleo/ocean/node15.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4dplane Posted September 21, 2005 #22 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Well this is a little of what NASA has to say about why they want to go to the moon. "What are we going to do on the moon? We will learn more about the art of exploration on the moon. Since the last Apollo mission there, robotic missions have raised intriguing new science questions, such as the character of the water ice in the permanently shadowed craters near the lunar poles. So there is new fundamental science to be performed. More so, we will be learning to live on the new frontier - we'll be learning how to "live off the land" by making oxygen and rocket propellants from the local materials, and we'll be testing new technologies and operations that will allow us to travel on to Mars and then beyond." Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekorig Posted September 21, 2005 #23 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Lets see...reason to go to the moon: altough there is Helium-3 in the Earth, in the Moon is most concentrated. Billions of solar wind radiation make the lunar soil full of helium-33 Also you have a lot of minerals to mine. Earth is not infinite, we must found new mineral sources. Also we can begun to practice for closed habitats, and train ourselfs to live in other planets. And the most important. Think of the Earth has a big bag full of eggs. One rock and all break. We must "distribuite" the eggs in many baskets to ensure that is one rock fall, all the eggs arent broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitetalon Posted September 22, 2005 #24 Share Posted September 22, 2005 Geez, could we possibly spend billions on anything more useless? NASA unveils moon program NASA Administrator Michael Griffin showcased a mission to the moon in an Apollo-style capsule sitting atop rockets fashioned from shuttle components. "The space program is a long-term investment in our future," Griffin said. The new lunar program would begin in 2018 by landing four astronauts on the moon for a seven-day stay. The last lunar landing was Apollo 17 in 1972. The centerpiece of NASA's moonshot is the new spaceship known as the crew exploration vehicle, or CEV. It will be "designed to carry four astronauts to and from the moon, support up to six crew members on future missions to Mars, and deliver crew and supplies to the international space station," according to NASA's Web site. The new crew vehicle and lander will be similar to those used during the Apollo missions, but three times larger. Griffin said building a larger rocket system will allow for landing anywhere on the lunar surface. The Apollo missions only had enough fuel to land along the moon's equator. NASA hopes to have the rocket system ferrying crew and supplies to the space station in five years, according to NASA's Web site. The scenario was presented to White House officials last week before its formal unveiling to the public on Monday. Even before the official announcement, there was criticism from Capitol Hill over the cost of the lunar program, given U.S. government commitments to the Iraq war and recovery from Hurricane Katrina. "This plan is coming out at a time when the nation is facing significant budgetary challenges," Rep. Bart Gordon, a Tennessee Democrat on the House Science Committee, said in a statement. "Getting agreement to move forward on it is going to be heavy lifting in the current environment, and it's clear that strong presidential leadership will be needed." Full article: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/09/19/s...moon/index.html They always seem to find an even better "new and improved" method of wasting our money. How 'bout that probe to whatever that comet was to "study the origin of our galaxy"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekorig Posted September 23, 2005 #25 Share Posted September 23, 2005 A total waste of money . Lets sends that millions in total unusefull military ships like the Osprey, spending millions in a ship that the USA will never use in the full potential... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now