NASA, the American space agency, has unveiled plans for one of the largest rockets ever built to take a manned mission to the far side of the moon. It will ferry a mother ship and lunar lander into Earth orbit to link up with a smaller rocket carrying the crew. Once united they will head for the moon where the larger ship will remain in orbit after launching the lunar lander and crew. The design emerged during a space science conference in Houston, Texas, last week. The plan is part of Nasa’s “Return to the Moon” programme set in motion by President George W Bush two years ago. Under the project, up to four astronauts at a time will land on the far side of the moon to collect rock samples and carry out research, including looking for water that might one day support a lunar base. The scale of the missions is much larger than the earlier Apollo programme, which is why Nasa will need two separate rockets to take the mother ship and crew into space. Some missions will also see manned spacecraft landing in unexplored areas such as the lunar mountains and on the moon’s south and north poles. John Connolly, manager of Nasa’s lunar lander project, said the system was designed to carry crews to almost every part of the moon’s surface. “The samples they collect and the research they carry out will help solve many mysteries about the origins and composition of the moon and its suitability as a base,” he said.

The Apollo programme carried out six lunar landings between 1969 and 1972. The feat was a triumph, but the technical limitations of the Apollo craft, plus ignorance of lunar terrain, meant all six missions had to be sent to the moon’s plains. These regions, all on the near side of the moon, were the only areas known to be flat enough for a safe landing. This has frustrated scientists because the samples collected by the six missions are all similar. They are also thought to be younger than lunar mountain rocks. The far side — so called because it always faces away from the Earth — was first photographed in 1959 by a Russian probe. In 1968 the astronauts of Apollo 8 became the first to view it directly.

View: Full Article | Source: Times Online

That is something to see......I hope they'll put those plans to work soon.

NASA's current plans call for the shuttle fleet to be retired in 2010. In 2012 the first mission of the new manned spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) should take place. The first moon landing is planned for 2018.

There are more details of these plans on this thread: How We'll Get Back to the Moon on the sister site: Spaceflight News.

The trip to the far side would be difficult and risky. I would imagine it would not occur until quite a few successful missions have been carried out on the near side. It is not possible to communicate directly with a vehicle on the far side and so NASA would need a fleet of communications satellites in Lunar orbit before that could attempt such a mission.

Scientifically this could be a very worthwhile mission. The appearance of the far side is quite different from the nearside. The far side is almost completely devoid of the Lunar Mare (seas) which make the familiar "Man in the Moon" visible from Earth. It has also been suggested that the Lunar farside would be an excellent place to build a radio telescope as it would be totally shielded from the radio noise generated on Earth.

It's about time we decided to go back to the moon. We didn't learn half as much as
we could have during the Apollo landings. Now with more advanced technologies we
can go to areas of the moon we couldn't go to before and learn more about the origins
of the Earth and the moon and the formation of the early Solar System. The only
problem I see in the endevour is that going to the dark side is extremly risky. We could
probably learn just as much if we landed on the northern mountains and southern
highlands on the near side. Places like Tycho crater or the mountains that border the
north of the Sea of Rains. It also wouldn't cost as much because you won't need the
communication satellite network you would need for a far side landing.

I agree with you that there is much to learn from all of these places, although a landing in the mountainous regions may be too dangerous to attempt, however, for the reasons I put forward in my previous post there are good reasons to go to the far side. It is, after all, nearly 50% of the moons surface.

Incidentally the far side is not the "dark side". It receives as much sun light as the near side. It just points permanently away from the Earth.

I couldn't agree more with Waspie and Robert1. There is nothing I want more than for humans to return to the moon. But will this moon project happen?

I can't see it. Why? Because of this figure: Nine Trillion Dollars.

That, my friends, is the new U.S. National Debt -- or nearly so. Let's face it -- we're broke! And we need billions, if not some two trillion, to dump into the war in Iraq.

Not to mention that Social Security will soon go into the red, and Medicare is projected to be broke in less than 10 years!

When I was in graduate school studying aerospace science, a grand plan like this would be put forward every now and then -- trips to Mars, moon bases, space stations in L-Space -- but they all fell prey to budget woes. I fear this plan will also.

Yet, I hope it happens somehow. Let's all write our Congress rep in support! Space is worth it! It's a great investment. For every dollar spent, some $7 to $15 is returned to the U.S. economy. It also promotes international partnerships, cooperation and world peace!

I suspect that America will return to the moon. There are 2 very good reasons why I believe this. In killing off the shuttle in 4 years time Bush and NASA have almost guaranteed that the CEV will be built. Despite the cost the American public would not accept Chinese and Russians orbiting above their head whilst the US has to hitch a ride with someone. The un-manned heavy lift vehicle, which is the second piece of the return to the moon puzzle, will also get built. This vehicle will use shuttle derived components thus guaranteeing jobs in several US states. Senators and Congressmen do not like voting for job losses in their state.

So the craft needed to get to the moon are almost certainly going to be built. The other reason America will return to the moon is that Europe, Russia and China (the first two probably as a joint project) have all stated a desire to explore the moon. No American President is going to want to explain to his electorate why America is standing still in space exploration whilst the rest of the world over takes it.

The true loser in all this will be NASA's science programmes. NASA is being asked to carry out Apollo Mark II without an Apollo era increase in budget. As a result the science and planetary exploration budgets are already being cut. NASA has already cancelled a mission called Dawn. This was to be an ion drive propelled spacecraft which would have explored the asteroids Ceres and Vesta. Originally due for launch in June or July this year it had some technical problems to overcome but has now been cancelled completely.

Some truly excellent points, Waspie. And you make a great observation about China. They're really going hard for space right now, and yes, I don't think The West can let them just gain the advantage -- or will let them.

But we also could cooperate with them, I suppose. If the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. could cooperate on space in the thick of the cold war, anything is possible.

God NASA really needs to retire those shuttles, and spend the money elsewhere. What does everyone think of the current space station -- a budget-sucking black hole without a true mission??? Or useful??

I think the station has a potential to be useful but it needs a mission. NASA keeps cutting the science budget for the station and so it will be an outpost without a mission.

However the CEV is designed to go to Mars once NASA has returned to the moon. For that more research needs to be done into long term exposure into zero-G. No US astronaut has spent much more than 6 months in orbit continuously. Russian cosmonauts have spent more than a year continuously in zero-G, It is likely that a round trip to Mars is going to take around 2 years. The only place research into long duration missions can take place is on the ISS. It is also the only place that techniques that will be required on such a long flight can be perfected (zero-G medicine and surgery for example).

The ISS is expensive but it will be useful.

has anybody ever thought why we have'nt looked out past the moon?????????????

Because it is very expensive and very difficult. A manned spacecraft could reach the moon in 2 days. To reach Mars it is more like 9 months.

We are certainly looking out past the moon all the time. We have a probe currently heading to Pluto! I can't wait for those pics! A new Mars craft just enetered Mars orbit. We have a probe sending pictures from out by Saturn. NASA has no shortage of plans and ambitions -- but they have only $15 billion a year to work with, and a lot of projects.

At the same time, the moon is still important. It has a much more "shallow" gravity well, which would make it a much more efficient platform from which to launch future projects. Learning to live and work on the moon would laso teach us how to live in space permanently.

Someone really should be looking into mining the aseroid belt. Just one asteroid could supply all the iron and other metal needs of Earth for decades.