Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Asadora

US Won't Lead New Manned Moon Landings

38 posts in this topic

I was reading the following article:

http://www.space.com/20557-nasa-moon-missions-bolden.html

and I found the following statement to be quite bold:

With Obama now in his second term, Bolden also warned that if the next presidential administration chooses to make another major course change in NASA's human spaceflight program, such a change would mean

"We are probably, in our lifetime, in the lifetime of everybody sitting in this room, we are probably never again going to see Americans on the moon, on Mars, near an asteroid, or anywhere. We cannot continue to change the course of human exploration." "

This is sad but expected news. What I find most interesting in the above quote is that it could imply that any manned space flight will be privately funded and the need for NASA will be greatly depreciated, only leaving NASA to continue with telescopes and super imagining tools and space exploratory robots.

It is far more likely that any manned mission will be solely proacted by a private company to which will leave the rest of us, pretty much in the dark. India and China are still exploring the moon with their robot technology. If they find something grandly interesting, how likely are the rest of us to know?

I've always dreamed of us Humans returning to the Moon, because I just believe that now we could do it better; however, it would seem that given the information within the aforementioned article that this dream will never become a reality.

Someone really doesn't want us to return to the Moon. (I say that in jest partly.)

Do you think that we are losing a great opportunity to explore the Moon further with manned missions? Or do you think that as we have already been there and done that, there is no need to go back?

Kind Regards :)

(P.S.: Please be kind, as this is my first thread.)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are forgetting of Space X and other Space organisations. The Russian Space agency, European, Chinese, Indian.

USA does not own space

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are forgetting of Space X and other Space organisations. The Russian Space agency, European, Chinese, Indian.

USA does not own space

I did not say that the 'USA owns space.'

And if you actually read, you will see that I did say 'India and China are still exploring the moon.' Also when I said 'privately funded' that also is under the umbrella of the other Space agencies.

I went directly by the article and did not go off topic, which you have appeared to have done by misquoting me when it is clear -fact- as to what exactly I did say.

If you can not contribute positively to this thread, then do not contribute at all.

Next time, please take the time to -read- and to -think- before jumping on someone for no 'logical' reason whatsoever.

Kind Regards

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not say that the 'USA owns space.'

And if you actually read, you will see that I did say 'India and China are still exploring the moon.' Also when I said 'privately funded' that also is under the umbrella of the other Space agencies.

I went directly by the article and did not go off topic, which you have appeared to have done by misquoting me when it is clear -fact- as to what exactly I did say.

If you can not contribute positively to this thread, then do not contribute at all.

Next time, please take the time to -read- and to -think- before jumping on someone for no 'logical' reason whatsoever.

Kind Regards

I have not misquoted you Im saying what I know. You are saying Moon missions could be over or not happen. Nasa spends more time exploring on Mars or anywhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think NASA has their eye on a bigger mission. Which they are right you can't do everything you have to concentrate on one project and I like the idea of going to Mars or an asteroid.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which countries have even put a man in space? Russia, USA, and China. All others rode with either the USA or Russia. It's really kind of a disgrace that India and China with the amount of extreme poverty rampant in those countries even have a space program. Makes about as much sense as North Korea spending money on Nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been there done that,... New missions, new frontiers to be explored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on China and Russia . Go for it.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I dont care who puts a man on the moon, as long as they do it in my lifetime.

Imagine watching THAT on TV, in HD.

Edited by Hazzard
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continue putting off space research and other-world colonization and when an unstoppable space or terrestrial threat comes and everyone is stuck here with no way to get off the dying planet, then you will know that nothing is more important than establishing a backup human colony far away from the homeworld.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear ya Hazzard ! HD T.V on the Moon It would re-energize us all ! No matter Whom does it ! We all on this planet need to chip in on a return !

:tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are thought to be vast reserves of Helium-3 on the moon and that provides indiustry with a commercial incentive to get to the moon and back. NASA's mission, IMHO, is to stretch mankind's boundaries and do things that are purely scientific and/or intrinsically valuable to us as a species in the same way that landing on the moon in 1969 was not commercially valuable but was intrinsically valuable.

Landing a man on Mars would be a seminal event for mankind and would push techniology ahead a generation. It is the right mission for NASA to pursue. Let industry work the moon and NASA get us to Mars.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish we were making bolder explorations. Funding for other stuff if getting in the way of our discovery of stars, we whould of well been to Mars by now, considering we went to the Moon in the 60's, and the technology they had then is less than what he have in our Mobiles/cell phones. We have to take risks now or we're never going progress in this century let alone after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as it is human it is progress robotics just sucks... Nasa has become nothing more than a fancy observatory... since gov, rather sell bullets and armory instead of developing economy and exploration means...

Just imagine switching 1 year military budget with Nssas... that would be breath taking.. in just 1 year..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as it is human it is progress robotics just sucks... Nasa has become nothing more than a fancy observatory...

Many believe it is a massive waste to send humans when you can send robots for a hundredth of the cost, peform the same science and stay on the planet for extended periods of observation. Curiosity has done a massive amount of science in a very short time and by all indications, will be doing so for years. When the technology is advanced to the point that you can get people to Mars in a couple of months, land them for a month and get them back in a couple of months I say go but anything longer is dangerous, massively expensive and and a waste of time and money. Send robots to answer our questions until manned exploration is feasible.

since gov, rather sell bullets and armory instead of developing economy and exploration means...Just imagine switching 1 year military budget with Nssas... that would be breath taking.. in just 1 year..

Government buys bullets and armor, they don't sell it and defending the country against its many enemies is in the preamble of the constitution it is considered so important but no where is exploration discussed. BTW, I grew up during the apollo program and for a decade I heard the democrats rail against the cost of the program and how it would be money better providing for the poor and I expect that would occur at a much higher volume if we decided to spend $100B or more to fly a couple of people to Mars for a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been there done that,... .

Or HAVE we?? :D :D :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also i doubt a little that we have been there in the moon at all!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

come on russia somebody has to go the moon!!!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can not contribute positively to this thread, then do not contribute at all.

Asadora, I know you said this is your first topic, but you must expect people to hold different view points from your own. Defend your views by all means, but please do not tell people they can not post. It tends to make matters worse, which is why the rules don't allow it:

5f. Balanced debate: Do not make posts forbidding opposing viewpoints, both sides of a debate should be represented.

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

India and China are still exploring the moon with their robot technology.

As is NASA.

The most powerful imaging satellite ever place in orbit around the Moon is the NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) which is still operating.

The duel spacecraft Gravity Recovery And Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission only completed its mission in December.

The Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) is due for launch on 12th August this year.

If they find something grandly interesting, how likely are the rest of us to know?

Extremely.

These are scientific missions and the results are made public. From a political point of view what is the point of spending money on space exploration if you can't boast about what you have found?

Many foreign scientists will be involved with the research. India's Chandrayaan-1 probe carried instruments contributed by NASA, ESA and Bulgaria.

Whilst the Chinese Chang'e 1 & 2 missions didn't carry foreign built instruments ESA's communications network was used to transmit and receive signals from the craft.

Space exploration is quite a contradiction being simultaneously a race for prestige amongst nations whilst at the same time relying heavily on international co-operation.

There are thought to be vast reserves of Helium-3 on the moon and that provides indiustry with a commercial incentive to get to the moon and back.

This is an often quote reason for a return to the Moon, but it is, in the short term, not a realistic one.

The "vast" reserve you mention are not really so vast, just larger than on Earth. 3He is only thought to exist in levels on the Moon of around 25 parts per million.

The market for this depends on nuclear fusion becoming commercially viable. Until that happens (and most experts believe it is still at least 50 years away) then there is simply no market for the 3He. Worse still, only some hypothetical methods of nuclear fusion use 3He at all. Most of us are not going to be around to see 3He mining on the Moon become a reality, if it ever does.

Landing a man on Mars would be a seminal event for mankind and would push techniology ahead a generation. It is the right mission for NASA to pursue. Let industry work the moon and NASA get us to Mars.

There are two camps of thought on this, even within NASA. Some believe that the benefits of going to Mars mean that it should be NASA's next goal. They believe that the "been there, done that" attitude means that returning to the Moon will be much less inspiring.

Others believe that NASA should take a step by step approach. Learn how to live on the Moon in a permanent base first and use the lessons learnt from that to go to Mars with the aim of permanent habitation there too.

Both arguments have good points.

I tend to think that Bolden's statement was less a prediction and more a piece of political manoeuvring. I think he is in the "Mars next" camp and is trying to point NASA in that direction.

The one point that is interesting is that he discounts a US led return to the Moon in his life time. With Russia making it clear that they wish to build a base on the Moon and ESA frequently expressing a desire to be part of that mission Bolden is clearly leaving enough room for future manoeuvre. He is not discounting NASA astronauts returning to the Moon as part of an international programme, albeit one that NASA will not lead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously what the **** NASA? This honestly makes me believe the Moon Landing was just a hoax, and or Aliens told us to stay off of there territory. Are technology is so much better, and more powerful that we should be able to do it 100 times easier than when we first did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously what the **** NASA? This honestly makes me believe the Moon Landing was just a hoax, and or Aliens told us to stay off of there territory. Are technology is so much better, and more powerful that we should be able to do it 100 times easier than when we first did it.

Seriously stevemagegod, this makes me honestly believe that some people have no knowledge of the overwhelming amount of evidence which shows beyond any doubt that Apollo happened. It makes me think they have no understanding of concepts like budget cuts, or the fact that the direction that NASA takes is governed by the whims of the President of the United States. In fact it makes me honestly believe that some people have no knowledge of spaceflight at all.

Just because NASA is choosing not to do something does not mean that NASA can't do something.

How is NASA deciding to send astronauts to Mars (something hugely more difficult than going to the Moon) evidence that they can't go to the Moon. How is it a logical argument to claim that because someone chooses to do a hard thing it is proof that they couldn't do an easy thing?

Why does every single topic about the Moon have to be hijacked by attempts to turn it into yet another "we didn't go to the Moon" topic? That's what the conspiracies section of this site is for folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an often quote reason for a return to the Moon, but it is, in the short term, not a realistic one.

The "vast" reserve you mention are not really so vast, just larger than on Earth. 3He is only thought to exist in levels on the Moon of around 25 parts per million.

The market for this depends on nuclear fusion becoming commercially viable. Until that happens (and most experts believe it is still at least 50 years away) then there is simply no market for the 3He. Worse still, only some hypothetical methods of nuclear fusion use 3He at all. Most of us are not going to be around to see 3He mining on the Moon become a reality, if it ever does.

In the short term it may not be viable and it is highly speculative, expensive but the potential payoff is astronomical. Precisely why the next folks on

the moon should be funded commercially. If stockholders want to invest in the venture they can and if not they pass. Someone will eventually do it and on teh meantime NASA can concentrate on improving propulsion technology and designing gear for Mars or an asteroid.

Good, short but informative article on Helium 3 and the moon:

http://www.explainingthefuture.com/helium3.html

Some interesting work on a new ion drive engine that could make a trip to Mars feasible:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/152845-nasa-funded-fusion-rocket-could-shoot-humans-to-mars-in-30-days

Lot's of ifs here but hey, it's a novel idea and maybe it will work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we were to focus on the opportunities of space exploration with the same zeal with which we build war machines, we could realize these goals of manned exploration and perhaps colonization. Can we celebrate the scientist with the same zeal with which we celebrate the decorated war hero, the gladiator? Unsure. But, perhaps the business community, driven by profit but nevertheless recognizing creative genius regardless of nationality, will make these explorative endeavors possible. And, then there are always those few wealthy and adventurous benefactors, who would like to make a lasting legacy for mankind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If we were to focus on the opportunities of space exploration with the same zeal with which we build war machines, we could realize these goals of manned exploration and perhaps colonization. Can we celebrate the scientist with the same zeal with which we celebrate the decorated war hero, the gladiator? Unsure. But, perhaps the business community, driven by profit but nevertheless recognizing creative genius regardless of nationality, will make these explorative endeavors possible. And, then there are always those few wealthy and adventurous benefactors, who would like to make a lasting legacy for mankind.

So your suggestion is we unilaterally disarm and pour all the money into space exploration?

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.